This issue of Tropical Grasslands−Forrajes...

This issue of Tropical Grasslands−Forrajes Tropicales is the second “Special Issue IGC 2013” and comprises papers presented at the 22nd International Grassland Congress, Sydney 15-19 September 2013. It complements the first Special Issue IGC 2013 (which was composed of all papers presented at the IGC 2013 Session 1.2.1 − “Development and Impact of Sown Tropical Species”) and comprises 18 papers on R&D topics, all related to the tropics and subtropics and selected from sessions other than 1.2.1: One plenary paper, 4 invited keynote papers and 13 oral presentation papers.

The issue is the result of an agreement with the International Grassland Congress Continuing Committee (www.internationalgrasslands.org), giving permission to co-publish the papers. The content of papers is essentially the same as that published in the Conference Proceedings. Any changes are the result of additional reviewing and adapting to the journal style.

A third “Special Issue IGC 2013” will include a wide range of selected poster papers, again all related to the tropics and subtropics and selected from IGC 2013 sessions other than 1.2.1. It is scheduled for publication in February 2014.

International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) retains copyright of articles with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons − Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (to view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).

Accordingly, users/readers are free to share (to copy, distribute and transmit) and to remix (to adapt) the work under the conditions of Attribution, Noncommercial, and Share Alike (see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/


Editors Rainer Schultze-Kraft, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Colombia

Management Committee

Changjun Bai, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences (CATAS), P.R. China

Robert J. Clements, Agricultural Consultant, Australia

Asamoah Larbi, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria

Michael Peters, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Colombia

Lyle Winks, Agricultural Consultant, Australia Rainer Schultze-Kraft, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Colombia Cacilda B. do Valle, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa), Brazil Lyle Winks, Agricultural Consultant, Australia

Editorial Board Changjun Bai, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences (CATAS), P.R. China

Caterina Batello, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Italy

Michael Blummel, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), India

Robert J. Clements, Agricultural Consultant, Australia

Myles Fisher, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Colombia

Albrecht Glatzle, Iniciativa para la Investigación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agraria Sostenible (INTTAS), Paraguay Orlando Guenni, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad Central de Venezuela (UCV), Venezuela Jean Hanson, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Ethiopia Michael David Hare, Faculty of Agriculture, Ubon Ratchathani University, Thailand

Mario Herrero, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia

Masahiko Hirata, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, Japan

Peter Horne, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Australia

Johann Huguenin, Sistemas Ganaderos en el Mediterráneo y las Zonas Tropicales, CIRAD, France

Muhammad Ibrahim, Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA), Belice

Asamoah Larbi, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria

Carlos E. Lascano, Universidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotá, Colombia

Robert Paterson, Agricultural Consultant, Spain

Bruce Pengelly, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia T. Reginald Preston, University of Tropical Agriculture Foundation (UTA), Colombia Kenneth Quesenberry, University of Florida, USA Max Shelton, University of Queensland, Australia Werner Stür, University of Queensland, Australia Cacilda B. do Valle, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa), Brazil

Principal Contacts Rainer Schultze-Kraft Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) Colombia Phone: +57 2 4450100 Ext. 3036 Email: [email protected]

Technical Support Cristhian David Puerta R. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) Colombia Phone: +57 2 4450100 Ext. 3354 Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Table of Contents

IGC 2013 Plenary Papers Feeding the World in 2050: Trade-offs, synergies and tough choices for the livestock sector 125-136 Jimmy Smith, Shirley Tarawali, Delia Grace, Keith Sones

IGC 2013 Keynote Papers Harry Stobbs Memorial Lecture: Can grazing behavior support innovations in grassland management? 137-155 Paulo César de Faccio Carvalho Challenges and opportunities for improving eco-efficiency of tropical forage-based systems to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions

156-167

Michael Peters, Mario Herrero, Myles Fisher, Karl-Heinz Erb, Idupulapati Rao, Guntur V. Subbarao, Aracely Castro, Jacobo Arango, Julián Chará, Enrique Murgueitio, Rein van der Hoek, Peter Läderach, Glenn Hyman, Jeimar Tapasco, Bernardo Strassburg, Birthe Paul, Alvaro Rincón, Rainer Schultze-Kraft, Steve Fonte, Timothy Searchinger

Nitrogen management in grasslands and forage-based production systems – Role of biological nitrification inhibition (BNI)

168-174

G.V. Subbarao, I.M. Rao, K. Nakahara, Y. Ando, K.L. Sahrawat, T. Tesfamariam, J.C. Lata, S. Boudsocq, J.W. Miles, M. Ishitani, M. Peters

Brazilian agroforestry systems for cattle and sheep 175-183 Roberto G. de Almeida, Carlos Mauricio S. de Andrade, Domingos S.C. Paciullo, Paulo C.C. Fernandes, Ana Clara R. Cavalcante, Rodrigo A. Barbosa, Cacilda B. do Valle

IGC 2013 Oral Presentation Papers Technical challenges in evaluating southern China’s forage germplasm resources 184-191 Bai Changjun, Liu Guodao, Zhang Yu, Yu Daogeng, Yan Linling Current status of Stylosanthes seed production in southern India 192-196 Nagaratna Biradar, Vinod Kumar, B.V. Rajanikant Advances in improving tolerance to waterlogging in Brachiaria grasses 197-201 Juan A. Cardoso, Juan Jiménez, Joisse Rincón, Edward Guevara, Rein van der Hoek, Andy Jarvis, Michael Peters, John Miles, Miguel Ayarza, Socorro Cajas, Álvaro Rincón, Henry Mateus, Jaime Quiceno, Wilson Barragán, Carlos Lascano, Pedro Argel, Martín Mena, Luis Hertentains, Idupulapati Rao

http://www.tropicalgrasslands.info/index.php/tgft/article/view/79










Integrated crop-livestock systems − a key to sustainable intensification in Africa 202-206 A.J. Duncan, S.A. Tarawali, P.J. Thorne, D. Valbuena, K. Descheemaeker, S. Homann-Kee Tui

Impact of tropical forage seed development in villages in Thailand and Laos: Research to village farmer production to seed export

207-211

Michael D. Hare, Suphaphan Phengphet, Theerachai Songsiri, Naddakorn Sutin, Edward S.F. Vernon, Eduardo Stern

Dry season forages for improving dairy production in smallholder systems in Uganda 212-214 Jolly Kabirizi, Emma Ziiwa, Swidiq Mugerwa, Jean Ndikumana, William Nanyennya Understanding the causes of bush encroachment in Africa: The key to effective management of savanna grasslands

215-219

Olaotswe E. Kgosikoma, Kabo Mogotsi Identifying and addressing sustainable pasture and grazing management options for a major economic sector – the north Australian beef industry

220-224

Neil D. MacLeod, Joe C. Scanlan, Lester I. Pahl, Giselle L. Whish, Robyn A. Cowley Forages improve livelihoods of smallholder farmers with beef cattle in South Central Coastal Vietnam 225-229 Nguyen Xuan Ba, Peter A. Lane, David Parsons, Nguyen Huu Van, Ho Le Phi Khanh, Jeff P. Corfield, Duong Tri Tuan

Systematic management of stocking rates improves performance of northern Australian cattle properties in a variable climate

230-234

Lester I. Pahl, Joe C. Scanlan, Giselle L. Whish, Robyn A. Cowley, Neil D. MacLeod Lessons from silage adoption studies in Honduras 235-239 Christoph Reiber, Rainer Schultze-Kraft, Michael Peters, Volker Hoffmann Grasslands in India: Problems and perspectives for sustaining livestock and rural livelihoods 240-243 Ajoy K. Roy, Jai P. Singh Improving smallholder livelihoods: Dairy production in Tanzania 244-248 Edward Ulicky, Jackson Magoma, Helen Usiri, Amanda Edward















Tropical Grasslands – Forrajes Tropicales (2013) Volume 1, 125−136

www.tropicalgrasslands.info

Feeding the World in 2050: Trade-offs, synergies and tough choices

for the livestock sector

JIMMY SMITH, SHIRLEY TARAWALI, DELIA GRACE AND KEITH SONES

International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya. www.ilri.org

Keywords: Agriculture, food security, livestock, food systems, misconceptions, trade-offs.

Abstract

Feeding the World in 2050 is a major challenge at the forefront of the global development agenda. The importance of

agriculture in addressing this challenge has re-emerged in recent years as food security issues are considered in a more

holistic manner. The role of livestock as part of the solution is, however, often not considered. This article presents a

brief overview of the global food security challenge, and considers the increased focus on holistic food systems. It con-

tends that animal agriculture is relevant to this complex, multifaceted and dynamic global challenge. However, if live-

stock-based solutions are to become a reality, a number of partial truths and trade-offs often associated with livestock

and food need to be addressed. The role of livestock systems in future food security is considered in relation to differ-

ent potential development trajectories of the sector, highlighting opportunities to ensure that livestock’s contribution to

global food security is a positive one, which also addresses concerns of environment, equity and human health.

Resumen

Para el 2050, la alimentación de la población mundial es el mayor desafío dentro de la agenda global. En los años re-

cientes, ha surgido nuevamente la importancia de la agricultura para hacer frente a este reto, ya que los temas de segu-

ridad alimentaria se consideran de una manera más holística que antes. No obstante, el papel de la ganadería como par-

te de la solución a menudo no es tomado en cuenta. En este artículo se presenta una breve revisión del reto de la segu-

ridad alimentaria global y se considera el mayor enfoque holístico en los sistemas alimentarios. Se sostiene que la ga-

nadería es relevante para este reto global el cual es complejo, multifacético y dinámico. Sin embargo, para que las so-

luciones basadas en la producción pecuaria lleguen a ser una realidad, es necesario considerar una serie de verdades

parciales y compensaciones recíprocas, asociadas a menudo con la ganadería y la producción de alimentos. El papel de

los sistemas de producción animal en el futuro de la seguridad alimentaria se discute en relación con las diferentes po-

sibilidades de desarrollo del sector. Se destacan las oportunidades para asegurar que la contribución de la producción

pecuaria a la seguridad alimentaria global sea positiva y que aborde los temas relacionados con el medio ambiente, la

equidad y la salud humana.

Introduction

By 2050 most of the World’s population (10 billion or so

inhabitants) will be living in towns and cities. Feeding

these people will require a 70–100% increase in the

amount of food produced today (Burney et al. 2010).

Not only will the quantity of food that is needed in-

crease, but also quality requirements will be more exact-

ing, driven by both consumers and regulators. People

___________ Correspondence: Jimmy Smith, International Livestock Research

Institute (ILRI), PO Box 30709, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya.

Email: [email protected]

who live in the rapidly emerging economies, and even

those in countries currently categorized as poor, will

demand better and more varied diets that contain far

more meat, milk and eggs, the animal-source foods, than

today. Increasingly food will be purchased in supermar-

kets, pre-packed and processed.

Against a background of growing water scarcity, ris-

ing energy prices, the best land already being in produc-

tion and impacts of climate change, which are often det-

rimental, producing sufficient quantity and quality of

food for nearly 10 billion people represents a huge chal-

lenge.

It is estimated that by 2050 at least an additional 1 Gt

(1 billion tonnes) of cereals (IAASTD 2009), 1 Gt of

http://www.ilri.org/


126 J. Smith, S. Tarawali, D. Grace and K. Sones


dairy and 460 Mt of meat (FAO 2011a) will be needed

annually (based on consumption estimates). With the

drivers of increased population, urbanization and higher

incomes, value of and demand for animal-source prod-

ucts will increase faster than those from other agricul-

tural sectors (Herrero et al. 2013a). Much of this in-

creased production will have to come from the same land

base which is currently producing food of both animal

and plant origin.

How will the World be fed? Where and by whom will

its food be produced and at what cost to the environ-

ment, public health and animal welfare? Who will bene-

fit from the global food system and who will lose out?

How will agricultural and food systems be adapted to

meet these changes and challenges? The answer to these

important questions will depend largely on the policy

and institutional framework that nations, regions and the

global community develop and the incentives and barri-

ers these create.

All too often livestock are ignored in the global agri-

culture and food debate; the focus of attention for agri-

culture is invariably crops, and food usually means sta-

ples, mostly cereals. Even when nutrition is considered,

an area where the animal-source foods have a real com-

parative advantage, livestock rarely get a mention.

This paper therefore sets out to position livestock as a

key part of the solution to feeding the World in 2050: a

source of nutrient-dense animal-source foods that can

support normal physical and mental development and

good health; an income stream that enables the World’s

billion poorest people to buy staple foods and other

household essentials; and a means of underpinning soil

health and fertility and increased yields, thereby ena-

bling more sustainable and profitable crop production. In

doing so, however, it acknowledges that: livestock pro-

duction has the potential to do harm to the environment;

the sector is a significant source of greenhouse gases;

and it can be detrimental to human health. However,

there are real opportunities to mitigate such negative im-

pacts as livestock systems transition in the coming dec-

ades.

It will argue that the meat, milk and eggs, and other

goods and services that livestock provide, can and must

be produced in ways that are less damaging to the envi-

ronment and with reduced risk to public health, while

also supporting sustainable livelihoods for hundreds of

millions of the World’s poorest citizens, who currently

have few other options – at least while they transit to

new occupations and livelihoods as economies grow,

mature and diversify. In the process, it will address some

of the common misconceptions that surround livestock

and which all too often cloud the debate.

Feeding the World – what are the challenges?

With less than 2 years remaining to the 2015 deadline

for the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs), the international community is closely scruti-

nizing the progress made. Goal number 1 refers to the

eradication of poverty and hunger, recognizing that these

2 dimensions are inextricably linked: the poor spend the

majority of their income on food.

The 2013 hunger report (Bread for the World Institute

2012) recently proposed a bold new goal, a successor to

the MDGs, i.e. ‘to eliminate poverty and hunger by

2040’. It further recognized that the highest numbers of

people living on less than US$ 1.25 a day are in middle

income (not poor) countries. Food prices matter and

every country will need different solutions.

The Global Hunger Index (von Grebner et al. 2012) is

a measure of progress towards the target of eradicating

poverty and hunger. The index combines 3 equally

weighted indicators: the proportion of the population

with insufficient calorific intake; the proportion of chil-

dren under 5 years of age, who are underweight; and the

mortality rate of children under 5 years. Globally, al-

though the index has fallen steadily since 1990, the

overall score for the World is categorized as ‘serious’.

The poorest 2 regions of the World are South Asia

and sub-Saharan Africa. The hunger index for South

Asia fell markedly between 1990 and 1996, but has

failed to maintain this rate of improvement. In sub-

Saharan Africa, as a result of improvements since 2000,

the index score for 2012 was below that for South Asia.

Of the top 10 countries which have made the most im-

provement in the index since 1990, none is in South Asia

and only one, Ghana, is in sub-Saharan Africa; of the 6

countries, whose scores have deteriorated most during

this period, 5 are in Africa and another, DR Congo,

misses the list only due to shortage of data.

It is a shocking indictment of the global food system

that, in the 21st century, the majority of the World’s

population have sub-optimal diets: at least a billion go to

bed hungry; 2 billion are vulnerable to food insecurity; a

billion have diets which do not meet all their nutritional

requirements; and another billion suffer the effects of

over-consumption (Smith et al. 2012).

The shift to ‘food systems’

Alongside increased attention to how the World will

feed itself in the coming decades, there have been 2

other shifts in emphasis. The first is: ‘from quantity at all

costs, to sustainable quantities at acceptable quality’. It

is no longer regarded by many as being acceptable to

Livestock and feeding the World in 2050 127


consider production of ‘enough’ food in isolation; in

addition, that food must be produced in ways that are

environmentally, socially and economically sustainable.

The second is: ‘that defeating hunger by providing

enough energy is not enough’; balanced, wholesome nu-

trition must also be part of the solution.

So, in addition to addressing the overall hunger index,

the Global Hunger Index 2012 report stresses that food

production must include the sustainable and responsible

use of natural resources, food distribution and access,

balanced nutrition and access to and management of

natural resources (von Grebner et al. 2012). It considers

that addressing these aspects demands policy steps to

include responsible governance of natural resources,

scaling up of technical approaches and addressing the

drivers of natural resource scarcity.

The High Level Task Force on global food security,

established by the UN in 2008 as a response to the food

price crisis that year, has a similarly broad goal and rec-

ognizes the importance of functional links between pol-

icy and actions for food, land, water and energy security,

environmental sustainability, adaptation and mitigation

of climate change and ecosystem services (UN 2008).

A number of studies also recognize that food security

in the future needs to include managing risk and ensur-

ing reduced vulnerability of the major food systems of

the World. Especially in developing economies, food is

produced in systems that are often fragile; for example,

increased hunger since 1990 in Burundi, Comoros and

Côte d’Ivoire can be attributed to prolonged conflict and

political instability, while the devastating earthquake of

2010 pushed Haiti back into the ‘extremely alarming’

category.

The poor spend a disproportionate amount of their in-

come on food. This means they are especially vulnerable

both through limited access and by being severely af-

fected when food prices spike. The Montpellier Panel

(2012) stresses the need for agricultural growth (espe-

cially in Africa) to be underpinned by resilient markets,

agriculture and people.

Agriculture back on the agenda

Since 2008, when the fragility of national food systems

and their susceptibility to the vagaries of trade and price

fluctuations came to the fore, the role of agriculture, in-

cluding the underpinning research and development ef-

forts, has returned to the agenda as a crucial component

of food security at global, regional and national levels.

A recent FAO report (FAO 2012) emphasizes the im-

portance of agricultural investment for growth, reduction

in poverty and hunger, and the promotion of environ-

mental sustainability. Countries recognized as the poor-

est and hungriest are also those with the least agricul-

tural investment. Governments have a crucial role in

providing a conducive investment climate and helping

farming communities, especially women, in governing

large-scale investments and investing in public goods

and services that generate high returns. Likewise, a re-

cent report from the World Economic Forum stresses the

importance of agriculture as a driver for food security,

environmental sustainability and economic opportunities

(World Economic Forum 2013).

One of the more recent trends in the global quest for

food security is land acquisitions involving significant

private and foreign investments. Rulli et al. (2013) report

that some 46 Mha of land (and the associated water) has

been allocated in this way, with 90% of this distributed

over just 24 countries. Efforts are underway to promote

more positive development opportunities through such

processes. Cotula et al. (2009) point out that such acqui-

sitions are often based on the misconception that land is

abundant and ‘unused’, and tend to overlook the com-

plexities of land ownership and rights. In relation to the

livestock sector, in many cases land that is apparently

‘unused’ may actually constitute critical dry season graz-

ing resources or migration routes crucial for the man-

agement and ecological integrity of pastoralists, their

animals and the natural resources of which they are

stewards.

Smallholder agriculture – what role?

The role of agriculture in addressing future food needs is

unquestioned. What is more contentious is how and in

which time frame agricultural systems will evolve in

relation to this. Today, a considerable amount of food is

produced by smallholders; 500 million smallholders

support more than 2 billion people (Conway 2012). This

begs the question of whether, or for how long, this can

continue.

The roles of smallholders in providing future food,

especially those who raise livestock, are complex, multi-

dimensional and at times controversial. Hazell et al.

(2007) and Wiggins et al. (2010) evaluated the ‘pros and

cons’ of smallholder development, recognizing the com-

binations of policy, market and institutional innovations

that are demanded to make these enterprises viable in the

future.

One dimension where there is broad agreement is

that, as agricultural systems transition, one of the crucial

though hitherto marginalized elements will be to address

the role of women, in particular their access to informa-

tion and inputs (FAO 2011b).



Conway (2012) suggests that, while the World’s one

billion hungry can be fed, 24 conditions are needed, if

that is to happen; one of them is more funding for mixed

livestock systems.

In South Asia more than 80% of farms occupy less

than 2 ha; in sub-Saharan Africa smallholders contribute

more than 80% of livestock production; and globally

farms with a few ruminants, such as 2 cattle and half-a-

dozen sheep or goats, i.e. 2 tropical livestock units

(TLU), and 2 ha of land, contribute 50−75% of the total

livestock production. South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa

have 45% and 25%, respectively, of the World’s 725

million poor livestock keepers (Otte et al. 2012).

Smallholder and extensive livestock keepers produce

in fundamentally different ways from large-scale indus-

trial farmers. Industrial systems almost always rely on

food that could potentially be eaten by people – mostly

grains. Smallholder and extensive systems rely mostly

on food that is not available to people (grass, fodder,

residues and wastes).

Feeding the World – are livestock part of the

solution?

While livestock commodities and systems are rarely

mentioned in the context of addressing food security,

livestock are, and must be, part of the solution to global

food security; significant amounts of the World’s food

supply, both crop and livestock products, come from

systems in which livestock are important. Livestock

products play a critical role in nutrition and human

health. Amongst agricultural commodities, livestock

products are among the most expensive and fastest

growing in terms of demand. However, the potentially

negative impacts of livestock on human health and the

environment must also be addressed, along with equity

issues as the sector grows.

By 2050 it is projected that per capita consumption of

meat and milk in developing countries will have in-

creased by more than 57% and 77%, respectively, and

total consumption of meat and milk in these regions will

have increased by 2.4- and 2.6-fold (FAO 2011a). Yet

even with this rate of increase, consumption levels of

meat and milk will still be less than half those found in

developed countries.

More than 60% of all human diseases are shared by

animals, and for new and emerging diseases, the number

is as high as 75%. Diseases can pass from animals to

people in many ways, but one of the most common is

through livestock products. Not only can animal-source

foods transmit pathogens present in the animal, but also

they are often a vehicle for people to transmit pathogens

present in the environment or shed. While foods derived

from animals are excellent sources of nutrition for peo-

ple, unsurprisingly, they are also better at supporting

growth of pathogens than staple crops (Grace 2012).

Trajectories of livestock systems

The context for livestock development is rapidly evolv-

ing, driven by the continued rising demand for livestock

products, particularly in Asia, and a greater recognition

that the on-going transformation needs to be nuanced in

relation to the roles of smallholders, their diverse eco-

nomic situations and the different livestock commodities

they produce.

Higher demand means that the private sector in de-

veloping countries has become much more dynamic,

creating new types of opportunities for smallholder live-

stock production and marketing systems, and means for

market development. Accompanying these, however, are

rapid structural changes in scales and quality of produc-

tion, marketing and consumption of livestock commodi-

ties. As with all aspects of food production, there is a

need to consider the diversity of livestock production

systems and scales in developing country food systems

and how they can evolve to improve food security, while

reducing poverty in a way that is environmentally sound

and has positive human health outcomes.

With the objective to position better research and de-

velopment efforts in order to encompass the diversity of

livestock systems, 3 potential livestock growth scenarios

have been identified recently, which capture the dynam-

ics of the sector better than the conventional pastoral,

mixed crop-livestock and industrial categorization.

These emerged from a High-Level Consultation for a

Global Livestock Agenda to 2020, co-convened by the

International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and

The World Bank (AU-IBAR et al. 2012), and were de-

veloped further in ILRI’s strategy 2013−2022 (ILRI

2013). These trajectories also resonate with the categori-

zation of livestock systems used in a recent FAO study

of the role of livestock in food security (FAO 2011a):

livestock-dependent societies, small-scale mixed farmers

and city populations.

The 3 trajectories are:

Strong growth systems

These address the need to develop sustainable food sys-

tems that deliver key animal-source nutrients to the poor,

while facilitating a structural transition in the livestock

sector of developing countries. This will entail a transi-

tion from most smallholders keeping livestock in lowly



productive systems to eventually fewer households rais-

ing more productive animals in more efficient, intensive

and market-linked systems. These mostly mixed small-

holder systems already provide significant livestock and

crop products in the developing World and are likely to

grow the most in aggregate. In some instances, strong

growth will occur in rangeland systems, where appropri-

ate market connections and productivity increases can be

facilitated. In many parts of Africa and Asia, the transi-

tion is happening slowly, with smallholder marketing

systems still largely informal, although there are pockets

of more rapid change in systems with higher potential

and good market access.

These rapidly changing scenarios provide real oppor-

tunities to apply approaches such as sustainable intensi-

fication (Pretty et al. 2011), which describes 7 key com-

ponents to sustainable intensification summarized as:

“….producing more output from the same area of land

while reducing the negative environmental impacts and

at the same time increasing contributions to natural

capital and the flow of environmental services”.

Fragile growth systems

Rapid, market-focused growth will, however, not be the

trajectory for all poor livestock keepers. In areas where

growth in productivity is severely limited by remoteness,

harsh climates or environments, or by poor institutions,

infrastructure and market access, the emphasis will need

to be on enhancing the important role livestock play in

increasing the resilience of people and communities to

variability in weather, markets or resource demands.

Livestock-based livelihoods will continue to be impor-

tant for feeding families and communities, supported by

protection of assets and conservation of natural re-

sources. Payment for ecosystem services is also likely to

become increasingly important, although so far these

schemes are still rare (Silvestri et al. 2012).

High growth with externalities

Where dynamic markets and increasingly skilled human

resources are already driving strong growth in livestock

production, fast-changing small-scale livestock systems

might damage the environment and expose their com-

munities to increased public health risks. Furthermore, in

these scenarios participation of the poorest livestock

keepers and other value chain actors is limited. This de-

mands an understanding and anticipation of all possible

negative impacts of small-scale livestock intensification.

Incentives, technologies, product and organizational in-

novations that mitigate health and environment risks,

while supporting the poorest people to comply with in-

creasingly stringent livestock market standards, are im-

portant approaches.

Livestock partial truths explored

Given the importance of livestock systems for food secu-

rity, as well as their potential to impact on poverty, live-

lihoods, health and nutrition and the environment, the

limited attention paid to the sector is puzzling. This

might, perhaps, be related to a number of misconcep-

tions. Although true in some circumstances, none of

them is globally true, and there are invariably various

trade-offs, synergies and tough choices that need to be

addressed in developing livestock-based solutions to the

global food security challenge. These often differ ac-

cording to the most likely livestock growth trajectory.

Below a series of livestock partial truths are explored

and opportunities to address these in relation to different

livestock trajectories are suggested.

Livestock contribute to food security both directly

and indirectly, and play a crucial role in the livelihoods

of almost one billion of the World’s poorest people. At

the same time, animal production, marketing and con-

sumption can have negative impacts on human health,

the environment and climate change. Understanding and

making appropriate choices amongst trade-offs is essen-

tial if the positive attributes are to be realized and the

negative ones minimized. In this context, a number of

perceptions about the livestock sector are explored in

relation to: food security; animal-source foods and hu-

man health; how and where food is produced; and the

environment.

Food security

Food security is about staple cereals – animal-source

foods are a luxury

It is true that the direct contribution made by livestock

products to World food supply may appear modest:

globally, 17% of the energy and 33% of the protein

come from livestock commodities (FAO 2009). How-

ever, the contribution of livestock to the World’s food

supply is often under-appreciated. Mixed crop-livestock

systems contribute significantly to the global supply of

animal products and also supply almost half of global

cereal; in the developing World, these systems supply

41% of maize, 74% of millet, 66% of sorghum and 86%

of rice (Herrero et al. 2009). Developing countries now

produce 50% of the World’s beef, 41% of milk, 72% of

lamb, 59% of pork and 53% of poultry (FAO 2011a).



In these mixed systems, livestock also play an impor-

tant role in the production of crops. Livestock provide

manure, a valuable soil nutrient, plus traction for land

preparation and transport, and generate income that can

be used to purchase seeds of improved varieties, fertil-

izer, labor and other inputs. Manure provides 12% of the

nitrogen used for crop production globally, rising to 23%

in mixed crop-livestock systems (Liu et al. 2010). In

many of these systems, livestock consume and use crop

by-products as major feed resources (Blümmel 2010).

Livestock therefore have and will continue to have a ma-

jor role in food security, especially for the poor in devel-

oping countries, and approaches such as sustainable in-

tensification continue to play an important role (Pretty et

al. 2011).

In addition, it has been estimated that 1.3 billion peo-

ple are employed in livestock value chains globally

(Herrero et al 2013a); the incomes they gain therefore

make a major contribution to their food security.

Livestock compete with human food

It is often argued that livestock consume feedstuffs that

people could benefit from directly, such as grains and

legumes, and thus, impact negatively on the total amount

of food available. It is true that today, about half the

World’s annual production of grain is fed to animals,

especially monogastrics (IAASTD 2009), and 77 Mt of

plant protein are fed to livestock to produce 58 Mt of

animal protein (Steinfeld et al. 2006). Feed crops occupy

an estimated half a billion hectares of land; including

grazing land, livestock account for four-fifths of all agri-

cultural land (Steinfeld et al. 2010).

Extrapolating from current trends, by 2050 an addi-

tional 1 Gt of grain will be needed world-wide, about

40% of which will be required for feeding livestock,

mostly pigs and chickens (IAASTD 2009).

It is often overlooked that raising fewer livestock and

consuming less animal products is unlikely to make

more grain available for human consumption; for the

billion undernourished people in the World, releasing

grain by not feeding it to animals would not make it

available for their consumption; fundamental challenges

would remain related to affordability and access to food

(FAO 2011a). Msangi and Rosegrant (2011) explored

the implications of ‘healthier diets’ with less meat in

developed countries on improving nutrition in develop-

ing countries, and found little, if any, positive results.

Importantly, it is not the livestock of the poor, which

compete for their food, it is the livestock of the rich.

For livestock systems based on grazing, which con-

stitute 40% of the earth’s surface and support some

120 million people (FAO 2011a; 2012b), livestock are

not consuming food that could be directly consumed by

people; rather, they are converting materials humans

cannot eat into milk, meat and eggs, that they can eat.

Herrero et al. (2009) estimate that 7% of the milk and

37% of global beef and lamb production is from such

systems. FAO (2011a) estimates that such grassland-

based systems provide 12% of the milk and 9% of the

meat annually. Differences in these estimates are most

likely due to the system boundaries used for such esti-

mations. In some of these systems, there is potential for

strong growth, if appropriate market arrangements cou-

pled with productivity increases can be aligned. For

other regions, these will be systems with fragile growth

prospects, where a focus on safety nets, insurance func-

tion of assets and environmental stewardship must come

to the fore.

Overall in the mixed crop-livestock systems, live-

stock mostly do not compete directly with people for

food and mainly convert inedible materials into milk and

meat. The major feed resource for animals in these sys-

tems (notably ruminants) is crop residues; as much as

70% of animal diets is composed of such materials,

which are essentially a by-product of food production

and therefore not in competition with human food

(Blümmel 2010). However, increasingly trade-offs be-

tween the use of crop residues for animal feed, maintain-

ing soil fertility and biofuels are being highlighted as

important issues to consider as crop-livestock systems

evolve (Valbuena et al. 2012). A major challenge for the

future is to address the looming biomass shortage and

how livestock systems may be intensified in sustainable

ways (Duncan et al. 2013).

There are significant opportunities to improve animal

productivity without introducing high grain-based diets

(Tarawali et al. 2011), thereby achieving win-win effi-

ciency and greenhouse gas mitigation, especially in

those systems that have the potential for strong growth.

Animal-source foods and human health

Poor people don't care what they eat

It is true that poor consumers are sensitive to prices, but

contrary to common belief, developing country consum-

ers, who shop in informal markets, do care about quality

attributes of food; they are even willing to pay a 5−15%

premium for safer foods (Jabbar et al. 2010). Studies in

Ethiopia have shown that, while the poorer sectors of

society have less concern than the rich, they take food

safety seriously.



Food scares, whether bird flu in poultry or horsemeat

in burgers, offer ‘natural experiments’ in which peoples’

attitudes towards food safety and quality can be tested.

Even in poor countries, dramatic changes in consump-

tion patterns have been observed in response to food

scares. ILRI’s work in Vietnam showed that when 'blue

ear' (porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome vi-

rus) made the news, the vast majority of consumers

stopped eating pork, shifted to chicken or went to outlets

perceived as safer (ILRI 2010). Assessments conducted

in the context of Rift Valley fever outbreaks in Kenya

showed consumers demanding to see butchers’ certifi-

cates and a drop in demand for ruminant meat as con-

sumers switched to poultry (ILRI 2007).

All 3 growth scenarios require solutions to the chal-

lenges of food-borne diseases and zoonoses, especially

in the higher growth scenarios. The use of risk-based

approaches and complex institutional arrangements will

be important in addressing such challenges (Randolph et

al. 2007).

Animal-source foods are bad for your health

It is true that over a billion people suffer from the effects

of over-consumption, including of animal-source foods,

increasing their risk of non-communicable diseases such

as cancers, cardiovascular disease and diabetes

(McMichael et al. 2007). Understandably animal-source

foods are often considered a threat to health. However, it

is often not appreciated how important foods derived

from animals can be for the several billion who are un-

dernourished, for whom consumption of too little ani-

mal-source food may have even worse consequences.

Children are particularly vulnerable to nutritional

deficiencies during the first 1000 days from conception

and chronic under-nutrition of young girls means that:

”….a vicious cycle of under-nutrition repeats itself, gen-

eration after generation” (UNICEF 2008).

Several forms of malnutrition (protein-energy malnu-

trition, iron-deficiency anaemia and vitamin A defi-

ciency) can be prevented if sufficient animal-source

foods are included in the diet. Even small amounts of

these foods can result in better cognitive development,

growth and physical activity of children (Neumann et al.

2002; Sadler et al. 2012). Animal-source foods are a

concentrated source of energy, protein and various es-

sential micronutrients, including those absent or scarce

in plant-based foods. They also match well with human

dietary requirements (Young and Pellett 1994; Allen

2005). It has been estimated that, to combat under-

nutrition effectively, 20 g of animal protein per person

per day is needed – the equivalent of an annual per cap-

ita consumption of 33 kg lean meat, 230 kg milk or 45

kg fish (FAO 2009).

As people get wealthier, an important question to ad-

dress is: how much animal-source food should they eat?

This is the subject of considerable debate, from the per-

spectives of the quantity as well as the practicalities of

limiting the increased consumption of milk, meat and

eggs; as people become less poor, the first manifestation

is often an increase in consumption of animal-source

foods. A range of figures has been proposed, ranging

from 58 to 90 g of meat per person per day (McMichael

et al. 2007; FAO 2011a; Westhoek et al. 2011). Live-

stock products themselves are not major contributors to

the increasing problem of obesity in poor countries, but

are often fried or otherwise processed in ways that make

them unhealthy choices (Ziraba et al. 2009).

As livestock systems evolve in strong and high

growth scenarios, paying attention to an appropriate

level of animal consumption will be a challenge. Mean-

while for fragile growth scenarios, ensuring that enough

animal-source food is available and accessible will re-

main paramount.

How food is produced

Large industrial livestock farms are the only answer

Smallholder livestock farms are often inefficient, pro-

ducing at low levels and often with a high level of

greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product (FAO

2010). Capper et al. (2009) assessed dairy production in

the USA and noted that, compared with 1944, in 2007

just 21% of the animals, 23% of the feedstuffs, 35% of

the water and only 10% of the land were being used to

produce one billion kilograms of milk. This period was

characterized by significant increases in average herd

and farm size, a phenomenon not yet observed to a sig-

nificant extent in developing countries, where it may be

anticipated that a similar trajectory is likely over coming

decades.

More than 70% of the dairy products in India, the

World’s largest dairy producer, come from small-scale

production enterprises and considerable amounts of live-

stock products are sold in informal markets (Costales et

al. 2010). While smallholders may continue to be com-

petitive in the dairy sector, a more rapid switch to indus-

trial systems is likely for pig and poultry production

(Tarawali et al. 2011).

Standards of disease management and biosecurity are

also considered poor in smallholder systems. Hence,

many recommend that future livestock farming must be

based on large-scale industrial systems. Not all agree,



however. Industrialization of livestock systems may fa-

cilitate disease transmission, for example through high

density populations and the challenge of managing large

volumes of waste, and promote the use of anti-

microbials and thus emergence of antibiotic resistance. It

may also lead to reduced levels of genetic diversity,

which may promote evolution of pathogens and reduce

options for an uncertain future (Jones et al. 2013).

Livestock and the environment

Livestock are responsible for climate change

There is no doubt that livestock production contributes

to greenhouse gas emissions. How much has been a mat-

ter of some debate; estimates range between 8 and 51%

of total greenhouse gas emissions emanating from the

sector (Herrero et al. 2011a), although most estimates

fall in the range of 12−18%. Within agriculture as a

whole, the livestock sector provides the greatest oppor-

tunities for mitigating the greenhouse gas emissions,

both today and in the future. Herrero et al. (2013b) esti-

mate that up to half of the global greenhouse gas mitiga-

tion potential of agriculture, forests and land use com-

bined is in the livestock sector. Thornton and Herrero

(2010) estimated that the mitigation potential from feed-

ing improvements alone in tropical systems was around

7% of the global mitigation potential of agriculture.

Emissions per unit of production of milk at the farm

gate in sub-Saharan Africa are more than twice the

global average (FAO 2010) and similar inefficiencies are

reported for beef (Capper 2011). In the USA dairy sec-

tor, a 4-fold increase in the efficiency of production, at-

tributed to better feeding, breeding and animal health,

took place over a 6-decade period (Capper et al. 2009).

Real opportunities exist in many mixed systems for simi-

lar efficiency gains, even without moving fully to indus-

trial style production systems (McDermott et al. 2010;

Tarawali et al. 2011; FAO 2011a, 2012b), especially for

ruminant production in agrarian economies. There are

also opportunities to improve efficiencies in all livestock

production systems, given the wide range in the current

values (de Vries and de Boer 2009). Developing country

livestock systems, especially those on a strong growth

trajectory, also present significant greenhouse gas miti-

gation potential and opportunities for carbon offsets. For

fragile growth trajectories, carbon sequestration from

rangelands and the associated co-benefits can be ex-

plored (see below).

Livestock systems are significantly impacted by cli-

mate change and sound adaptation strategies are re-

quired. This is especially critical in the grassland sys-

tems, which are often undergoing fragile growth and

where some of the World’s poorest people rely entirely

on livestock for their livelihoods. Recent crises in the

Horn of Africa and Sahel bear witness to this and have

resulted in major humanitarian and food security disas-

ters. In many such cases, livestock are the only asset re-

maining on which to rebuild, and attention needs to be

paid to insuring the asset and mitigating loss. Innovative

arrangements, such as weather-index-based livestock

insurance schemes, which are triggered by remotely

sensed thresholds, are showing considerable promise in

this regard (Carter and Janzen 2012).

Water scarcity is a result of livestock production

Until recently, livestock and water were considered al-

most exclusively from the perspective of the impact of

livestock on water pollution (Steinfeld et al. 2006). Yet,

almost one-third of total agricultural water is used by the

livestock sector: feed from cropland uses 37% of the

water used for crop production and biomass grazed by

livestock represents 32% of the evapotranspiration from

grazed lands; direct consumption for drinking is rela-

tively insignificant, representing 10% of total usage

(Herrero et al. 2013a).

For mixed crop-livestock systems that are on a strong

growth trajectory, there are significant opportunities to

increase productivity of milk and meat per unit of water

used through feed, water and animal management strate-

gies (Peden et al. 2007). If such approaches are com-

bined, they could improve livestock water productivity

at least 3-fold (Descheemaeker et al. 2010a; 2010b). For

rangelands, there are opportunities to improve water

productivity by 45% through better rangeland manage-

ment practices (Rockstrom et al. 2007).

Water use estimates for livestock production have

been a hotly contested issue; highly diverse estimates of

up to 4.6 m3 (Singh et al. 2004) and a global average of

0.77 m3 water per liter of milk produced (Chapagain and

Hoekstra 2003) and a range of 10–100 m3 water per kg

of beef (Descheemaeker et al. 2009) suggest there is sig-

nificant potential for improvement.

Livestock production causes land degradation

Headlines often tell a grim story of land degradation due

to livestock; extensive cattle raising in the Amazon ac-

counts for at least 65% of the deforestation and up to

600 000 hectares per annum are reported to be cleared

for crop production to produce feed for pigs, poultry and

intensive dairy (Herrero et al. 2011b). However, with

rangelands occupying 40% of the earth’s surface, these



resources, largely managed by livestock-dependent peo-

ple, are a potentially huge carbon sink similar in magni-

tude to forests.

Carbon sequestration through rangelands, which is

optimum under conditions of moderate livestock grazing

(Conant and Paustian 2002), has the potential to seques-

ter up to 8.6 Mt of carbon per year in Africa (compared

with 1.9 with light grazing and 6.1 with heavy grazing).

Supporting such schemes and implementing them in

practice, however, are areas that require new research

and development efforts to address the complexities of

institutional and certification mechanisms, benefit shar-

ing and co-benefits (Silvestri et al. 2012; The World

Bank 2012). These areas could have significant divi-

dends for livestock systems undergoing fragile growth.

Conclusion

With the global population approaching 10 billion by

2050, the World is understandably concerned about how

it will feed itself in the future. Increasingly, the solution

to this challenge is being considered in relation to holis-

tic ‘food systems’, in which producing food is consid-

ered in relation to environmental, health and sometimes

equity issues.

Responding to rising food demand and uncertainty of

supply and prices in recent years put agriculture firmly

back on the development agenda. Yet, it is only very

recently that smallholder agriculture has been recognized

as part of the food security equation.

The role of livestock is seldom articulated in relation

to global food issues, and yet it presents opportunities

for important contributions to solutions that relate to

food security and sustainable livelihoods, as well as

health and environmental dimensions.

Livestock are undoubtedly part of the solutions to

feeding the World in 2050, but this will require a nu-

anced approach that takes cognizance of the different

development trajectories of the livestock sector and en-

compasses solutions that combine a range of biophysi-

cal, institutional, market, infrastructure and policy is-

sues.

In all these situations, better information about the

true impacts of livestock and a balanced assessment of

the benefits and dis-benefits of the sector will enable the

livestock sector’s role in global food security to be more

appreciated, valued and addressed.

The complexities of the livestock sector, plus the

varied trade-offs and balances, demand that research and

development efforts to address food security must con-

sider both biophysical and institutional solutions in

relation to the potential transition of today’s diverse live-

stock sector.

References

Allen LH. 2005. Multiple micronutrients in pregnancy and

lactation: An overview. American Journal of Clinical Nu-

trition 81:1206S–1212S.

Blümmel M, ed. 2010. Special issue on food feed crops.

Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology Vol. 10S.

http://goo.gl/VKTROg

Bread for the World Institute. 2012. Within reach: Global de-

velopment goals. 2013 Hunger Report. Bread for the

World, Washington, DC, USA.

Burney JA; Davis SJ; Lobell DB. 2010. Greenhouse gas miti-

gation by agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America 107:12052–12057.

Capper JL. 2011. Replacing rose-tinted spectacles with a high-

powered microscope: The historical versus modern carbon

footprint of animal agriculture. Animal Frontiers 1:26–32.

DOI:10.2527/af.2011-0009

Capper JL; Cady RA; Bauman DE. 2009. The environmental

impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007.

Journal of Animal Science 87:2160−2167.

Carter MR; Janzen SA. 2012. Coping with drought: Assessing

the impacts of livestock insurance in Kenya. I4 Index In-

surance Innovation Initiative BASIS Brief 2012-1. I4 Index

Insurance Innovation Initiative, Davis, CA, USA.

Chapagain A; Hoekstra A. 2003. Virtual water trade: A quan-

tification of virtual water flows between nations in relation

to international trade of livestock and livestock products.

In: Hoekstra AY, ed. Virtual water trade. Proceedings of

the International Expert Meeting on Virtual Water Trade.

Value of Water Research Report Series 12. Delft, The

Netherlands.

Conant RT; Paustian K. 2002. Potential soil carbon sequestra-

tion in overgrazed 17 grassland ecosystems. Global Bio-

geochemical Cycles 16:1143−1152.

Conway G. 2012. One billion hungry: Can we feed the World?

Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY, USA.

Costales AC; Pica-Ciamarra U; Otte J. 2010. Social conse-

quences for mixed crop-livestock production systems in

developing countries. In: Steinfeld H; Mooney H; Schnei-

der F; Neville L, eds. Livestock in a changing landscape:

Drivers, consequences, and responses. Island Press, Wash-

ington, DC, USA. p. 249−267.

Cotula L; Vermeulen S; Leonard R; Keeley J. 2009. Land grab

or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and

international land deals in Africa enabling poor rural peo-

ple to overcome poverty. IIED (International Institute for

Environment and Development), FAO (Food and Agricul-

ture Organization of the United Nations) and IFAD (Inter-

national Fund for Agricultural Development), London, UK

and Rome, Italy.

http://goo.gl/VKTROg

http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/af.2011-0009



Descheemaeker K; Amede T; Haileselassie A. 2009. Live-

stock and water interactions in mixed crop-livestock farm-

ing systems of sub-Saharan Africa: Interventions for im-

proved productivity. Working Paper 133. IWMI

(International Water Management Institute), Colombo, Sri

Lanka.

Descheemaeker K; Amede T; Haileselassie A. 2010a. Improv-

ing water productivity in mixed crop-livestock farming

systems of sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Water Man-

agement 97:579−586.

Descheemaeker K; Amede T; Haileselassie A; Bossio D.

2010b. Analysis of water productivity gaps and effects of

interventions on livestock water productivity in mixed

crop-livestock systems. Experimental Agriculture 47:

21−38.

de Vries M; de Boer IJM. 2009. Comparing environmental

impacts of livestock products. A review of life cycle as-

sessments. Livestock Science 128:1−11.

Duncan A; Tarawali SA; Valbuena D; Descheemaeker K.

2013. Integrated crop-livestock systems: A key to sustain-

able intensification in Africa. Proceedings of the 22nd In-

ternational Grassland Congress, Sydney, 2013. p. 958−961.

FAO. 2009. The state of food and agriculture: Livestock in the

balance. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations), Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector.

A life cycle assessment. FAO (Food and Agriculture Or-

ganization of the United Nations), Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2011a. World Livestock 2011 – Livestock in food secu-

rity. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the


FAO. 2011b. The state of food and agriculture: Women in

agriculture − Closing the gender gap for development.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations), Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2012. The State of Food and Agriculture. Investing in

agriculture for a better future. FAO (Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations), Rome, Italy.

Grace D. 2012. The deadly gifts of livestock. Agriculture for

Development 17:14−16.

Hazell P; Poulton C; Wiggins S; Dorward A. 2007. The future

of small farms for poverty reduction and growth. 2020

Discussion Paper No. 42. IFPRI (International Food Policy

Research Institute), Washington, DC, USA.

Herrero M; Thornton PK; Notenbaert A; Msangi S; Wood S;

Kruska R; Dixon J; Bossio D; van de Steeg J; Freeman

HA; Li X; Parthasarathy Rao P. 2009. Drivers of change in

crop-livestock systems and their potential impacts on

agroecosystems services and human wellbeing to 2030.

ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi,

Kenya.

Herrero M; Gerber P; Vellinga T; Garnett T; Leip A; Opio C;

Westhoek HJ; Thornton PK; Olesen J; Hutchings N;

Montgomery H; Soussanai J-F; Steinfeld H; McAllister A.

2011a. Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: The im-

portance of getting the numbers right. Animal Feed

Science and Technology 166−167:779–782.

Herrero M; MacMillan S; Johnson N; Ericksen P; Duncan A;

Grace D; Thornton PK. 2011. Improving food production

from livestock. In: Starke L, ed. State of the World 2011:

Innovations that nourish the planet. Worldwatch Institute,

Washington, DC, USA. p. 155−163.

Herrero M; Grace D; Njuki J; Johnson N; Rufino M. 2013a.

The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal

7s1:3−18.

Herrero M; Conant RT; Havlik P; Hristov AN; Smith P; Ger-

ber P; Gill M; Butterbach-Bahl K; Henderson B; Thornton

PK. 2013b. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the

livestock sector. Nature (accepted).

IAASTD. 2009. IAASTD (International Assessment of Agri-

cultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Devel-

opment) Global Report. Island Press, Washington, DC,

USA.

ILRI. 2007. Learning the lessons of Rift Valley fever: Im-

proved detection and mitigation of outbreaks. Participatory

assessment of Rift Valley fever surveillance and rapid re-

sponse activities. USAID-OFDA (United States Agency

for International Development − Office for Foreign Disas-

ter Assistance), ILRI (International Livestock Research In-

stitute) and Government of Kenya Ministry of Livestock

and Fisheries Development, Department of Veterinary

Services, Nairobi, Kenya.

ILRI. 2010. Demand for pork by Vietnamese consumers: Im-

plications for pro-poor livestock policy and development

agenda in Vietnam. Research Brief 1. ILRI (International

Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

ILRI. 2013. Better lives through livestock − Livestock re-

search for food security and poverty reduction. ILRI strat-

egy 2013–2022. ILRI (International Livestock Research

Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

Jabbar MA; Baker D; Fadiga ML. 2010. Demand for livestock

products in developing countries with a focus on quality

and safety attributes: Evidence from case studies. Research

Report 24. ILRI (International Livestock Research Insti-

tute), Nairobi, Kenya.

Jones BA; Grace D; Kock R; Alonso S; Rushton J; Said M;

McKeever D; Mutua F; Young J; McDermott J; Pfeiffer D.

2013. How do agricultural intensification and environ-

mental change affect zoonoses with a wildlife-livestock in-

terface? A systematic review. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. (in

press).

Liu J; You L; Amini M; Obersteiner M; Herrero M; Zehnder

AJB; Yang H. 2010. A high-resolution assessment of ni-

trogen flows in cropland. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

107:835–840.

McDermott J; Staal SJ; Freeman HA; Herrero M; van de Steeg

J. 2010. Sustaining intensification in smallholder livestock

systems in the tropics. Livestock Science 130:95−109.



McMichael AJ; Powles JW; Butler CD; Uauy R. 2007. Food,

livestock production, energy, climate change, and health.

The Lancet 370:1253–1263.

Msangi S; Rosegrant MW. 2011. Feeding the future’s chang-

ing diets. Implications for agriculture markets, nutrition

and policy. 2020 Conference: Leveraging agriculture for

improving nutrition and health. Conference Paper 3. IFPRI

(International Food Policy Research Institute), Washing-

ton, DC, USA.

Neumann C; Harris DM; Rogers LM. 2002. Contribution of

animal source foods in improving diet quality and function

in children in the developing world. Nutrition Research

22:193–220.

Otte J; Costales A; Dijkman J; Pica-Ciamarra U; Robinson T;

Ahuja V; Ly C; Roland-Holst D. 2012. Livestock sector

development for poverty reduction: An economic and poli-

cy perspective – livestock’s many virtues. FAO (Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Rome,

Italy.

Peden D; Tadesse G; Misra A. 2007. Water and livestock for

human development. In: Molden D, ed. Water for food,

water for life: A comprehensive assessment of water man-

agement in agriculture. Earthscan, London, UK and IWMI

(International Water Management Institute), Colombo, Sri

Lanka. p. 485−514.

Pretty J; Toulmin C; Williams S. 2011. Sustainable intensifi-

cation: Increasing productivity in African food and agricul-

ture systems. International Journal of Agricultural Sustain-

ability 9:5−24.

Randolph T; Schelling E; Grace D; Nicholson CF; Leroy JL;

Cole DC; Demment MW; Omore A; Zinsstag J; Ruel M.

2007. Role of livestock in human nutrition and health for

poverty reduction in developing countries. Journal of Ani-

mal Science 85:2788–2800.

Rockstrom J; Lannderstad M; Falkenmark M. 2007. Assessing

the water challenge of a new green revolution in develop-

ing countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America 104:6253−6260.

Rulli MC; Saviori A; D’Odorico P. 2013. Global land and

water grabbing. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America 110:892−897.

Sadler K; Mitchard E; Abdi A; Shiferaw Y; Bekele G; Catley

A. 2012. Milk matters: The impact of dry season livestock

support on milk supply and child nutrition in Somali Re-

gion, Ethiopia. Feinstein International Center, Tufts Uni-

versity, and Save the Children, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Silvestri S; Osano P; de Leeuw J; Herrero M; Ericksen P;

Kariuki J; Njuki J; Bedelian C; Notenbaert A. 2012.

Greening livestock: Assessing the potential of payment for

environmental services in livestock inclusive agricultural

production systems in developing countries. ILRI (Interna-

tional Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

Singh O; Sharma A; Shing R; Shah T. 2004. Virtual water

trade in dairy economy. Irrigation water productivity in

Gujarat. Economical and Political Weekly 39:3492−3497.

Smith JW; Sones K; Grace D; MacMillan S; Tarawali SA;

Herrero M. 2012. Beyond milk, meat and eggs: Live-

stock’s role in food and nutrition security. Animal Fron-

tiers 3:6−13.

Steinfeld H; Gerber P; Wassenaar T; Castel V; Rosales M; de

Haan C. 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental is-

sues and options. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations), Rome, Italy.

Steinfeld H; Mooney H; Schneider F; Neville L. 2010. Live-

stock in a changing landscape: Drivers, consequences, and

responses. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Tarawali SA; Herrero M; Descheemaeker K; Grings E;

Blümmel M. 2011. Pathways for sustainable development

of mixed crop livestock systems: Taking a livestock and

pro-poor approach. Livestock Science 139:11–21.

The Montpellier Panel. 2012. Growth with Resilience: Oppor-

tunities in African agriculture. Agriculture for Impact,

London, UK.

The World Bank. 2012. Carbon sequestration in agricultural

soils. Economic and sector work report no. 67395-GLB.

The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

Thornton PK; Herrero M. 2010. The potential for reduced

methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock and

pasture management in the tropics. Proceedings of the Na-

tional Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America 107:19667−19672.

UNICEF. 2008. State of the world’s children 2009: Maternal

and newborn health. UNICEF (United Nations Children’s

Fund), New York, USA.

Valbuena D; Erenstein O; Homann-Kee Tui S; Abdoulaye T;

Classens L; Duncan AJ; Gerard B; Rufino MC; Teufel N;

van Rooyen A; van Wijk M. 2012. Conservation agricul-

ture in mixed crop-livestock systems: Scoping crop residue

trade-offs in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Field

Crops Research 132:175–184.

von Grebmer K; Ringler C; Rosegrant MW; Olofinbiyi T;

Wiesmann D; Fritschel H; Badiane O; Torero M;

Yohannes Y; Thompson J; von Oppeln C; Rahall J. 2012.

Global Hunger Index Data. IFPRI (International Food Pol-

icy Research Institute), Washington, DC, USA and Con-

cern Worldwide, Dublin, Ireland.

DOI:10.2499/9780896299429

Westhoek H; Rood T; van den Berg M; Janse J; Nijdam D;

Reudink M; Stehfest E. 2011. The protein puzzle: The con-

sumption and production of meat, dairy and fish in the

European Union. PBL Netherlands Environmental As-

sessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Wiggins S; Kirsten J; Llambi L. 2010. The future of small

farms. World Development 38:1453−1526.

World Economic Forum. 2013. Achieving the New Vision for

Agriculture: New models for action. A report by the World

Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture initiative.

Prepared in collaboration with McKinsey & Company.

World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896299429



Young VR; Pellett PL. 1994. Plant proteins in relation to hu-

man protein and amino acid nutrition. American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition 59:1203S–1212S.

Ziraba AK; Fotso JC; Ochako R. 2009. Overweight and obesi-

ty in urban Africa: A problem of the rich or the poor?

BMC Public Health 9:465. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-9-465

© 2013

Tropical Grasslands−Forrajes Tropicales is an open-access journal published by Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). This

work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit


http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-465





Harry Stobbs Memorial Lecture: Can grazing behavior support

innovations in grassland management?

PAULO CÉSAR DE FACCIO CARVALHO

Grazing Ecology Research Group, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. www.ufrgs.br

Keywords: Grazing management, pasture structure, grazing systems, forage intake, bite mass.

Abstract

Grazing is a fundamental process affecting grassland ecosystem dynamics and functioning. Its behavioral components

comprise how animals search for feed, and gather and process plant tissues in different spatio-temporal scales of the

grazing process. Nowadays, there is an increasing emphasis on grazing management and the role of the grazing animal

on ecosystem services, concomitantly with a decreasing emphasis on grazing management generating animal produc-

tion outputs. Grazing behavior incorporates both approaches, which are not necessarily dichotomist. It would provide

the basis to support innovation in grazing systems. However, it is unclear how the significant knowledge, developed in

this research area since the disciplines of Agronomy and Ecology began to interact, have supported creativity in graz-

ing science. It seems there is a current gap in this context, which was a major concern of researcher leaders like Harry

Stobbs. This paper pays tribute to him, reviewing recent grazing behavior research and prioritizing those studies origi-

nating in the favorable tropics and subtropics. New evidence on how pasture structure limits forage intake in

homogeneous and heterogeneous pastures is presented. Pasture management strategies designed to maximize bite mass

and forage intake per unit grazing time are assumed to promote both animal production and landscape value. To con-

clude, a Brazilian case study (PISA) is briefly described to illustrate how grazing behavior research can reach farmers

and change their lives by using simple management strategies (“take the best and leave the rest” rule) supported by

reductionist approaches applied in holistic frameworks.

Resumen

El pastoreo es un proceso fundamental que afecta la dinámica y el funcionamiento de los ecosistemas de pasturas. Sus

componentes comprenden la forma cómo los animales buscan el alimento y lo ingieren y cómo procesan los tejidos de

las plantas en diferentes escalas espacio-temporales dentro del proceso de pastoreo. Actualmente existe un énfasis

creciente en el manejo del pastoreo y en el papel de los animales en pastoreo respecto a los servicios de ecosistemas,

conjuntamente con el descenso del énfasis en el manejo de pastoreo con fines de producción animal. El comportamien-

to de pastoreo incorpora ambos enfoques, los cuales no necesariamente son dicotómicos; puede proporcionar la base

para innovaciones en los sistemas de pastoreo. No obstante no es claro cómo los avances significativos del conoci-

miento en esta área de investigación, desde que las disciplinas de agronomía y ecología comenzaron a interactuar, han

contribuido a la creatividad en la ciencia del pastoreo. Aparentemente existe un vacío en este contexto, y esto fue una

de las preocupaciones principales de investigadores líder como Harry Stobbs. En el presente documento se rinde

homenaje a este científico y se revisan las investigaciones recientes en comportamiento de pastoreo, priorizando estu-

dios procedentes de zonas favorables del trópico y subtrópico. Se presenta una nueva evidencia de la forma cómo la

estructura de una pastura limita el consumo del forraje tanto en pasturas homogéneas como heterogéneas. Se asume

que las estrategias de manejo del pastoreo, diseñadas a maximizar el bocado y su ingestión por unidad de tiempo de

pastoreo, son dirigidas a promover tanto la producción animal como el valor paisajístico. Para concluir, se presenta un

estudio de caso en Brasil (PISA) que ilustra y describe brevemente cómo la investigación en el comportamiento de

pastoreo puede llegar a los productores para contribuir a su bienestar solo con la adopción de estrategias sencillas de

manejo (la regla del “tome lo mejor y deje el resto”), con el apoyo de enfoques reduccionistas que se aplican en marcos

holísticos.

___________

Correspondence: Paulo C.F. Carvalho, Grazing Ecology Research

Group, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Av. Bento

Gonçalves 7712, Bairro Agronomia, Porto Alegre CEP 91540-000,

RS, Brazil.



138 P.C.F. Carvalho


Introduction

Harry Stobbs had a strong desire that results of scientific

research would reach practicing farmers in the field and

be adopted. He believed that most scientists worked to

solve problems/issues identified by themselves, and that

much knowledge generated did not turn into practice. As

an outstanding researcher of issues at the plant-animal

interface, he passed from this life too early in 1978. He

lived during a transition period, where pasture studies,

focused on the end product, were being expanded to

include an understanding of underlying processes driv-

ing grassland ecosystem dynamics. His legacy on

grazing behavior research appears to have been em-

braced more within temperate grassland research than in

the tropics, where a knowledge gap still exists (da Silva

and Carvalho 2005).

In the late 90s, agronomists and ecologists conducted

grazing behavior investigations aimed at understanding

plant-herbivore relationships and their influence on the

sustainability and equilibrium of grassland ecosystems

(Milne and Gordon 2003). Despite this advance, there

are no clear examples of how grazing ecology research

has produced innovations in pasture management (but

see Gregorini 2012).

Nowadays, pasture management is no longer oriented

primarily towards secondary productivity from the grass-

land (animal products), but has a multifunctional focus

including the whole pasture ecosystem, i.e. processes

involved in pasture production, utilization and sustaina-

bility (Lemaire et al. 2011). Kemp and Michalk (2011)

stated that desirable outputs of new pastoral farming

systems should be minimizing soil erosion from wind or

water, delivering clean water into river systems, and

maintaining a diversity of plants and associated species.

This is the current reality in grassland research in most

countries.

Accepting the importance of moving forward in this

direction, it is worth mentioning that an interruption in

the advancement of grazing behavior investigations

appears to have occurred in order to support the emer-

gence of innovations in pasture management, oriented

towards secondary productivity. This is of particular

concern in developing countries, where grazing livestock

is an important provider of income and employment

(Herrero et al. 2013). This disrupted continuum, when

knowledge generated by research does not translate into

technology benefiting farmers in the field, was a major

concern for Harry Stobbs.

This review aims to pay tribute to Harry Stobbs by

reviewing grazing behavior research that aims to support

grazing management and secondary production in the

favorable tropical/subtropical areas. A case study (PISA)

is presented briefly in order to illustrate how grazing

behavior research can be used to improve the lives of

farmers in the field.

Grassland Science and the new context for grazing

behavior

Grassland Science during the last century was oriented

towards production systems, and the maximization

of both primary and secondary production of pasture

(Humphreys 2007). The main goal was to identify

the potential productive boundaries, and the manage-

ment tools to reach them. Maximizing profits and

enhancing efficiencies in animal production on pastures

were essential.

In the late 1980s, Grassland Science, in relation to

grazing management, evolved from the debate on stock-

ing rate, grazing methods and livestock production to

focus on sward structure as a determinant of pasture

productivity and the main connecting link between plant

composition and animal grazing behavior (Hodgson

1985). Harry Stobbs led this research approach in tropi-

cal pastures, but greater advances were made with

temperate pastures, because his premature death resulted

in a termination of this research endeavor, until recently

(see Benvenutti et al. 2008a, 2008b, 2009; da Silva et al.

2012; Fonseca et al. 2012).

This focus on the plant-animal interface required

original approaches to understand causal relationships.

The concept of ecological hierarchy adapted to grazing

ecology introduced the different spatial and temporal

scales of the grazing process (Senft et al. 1987). Bailey

et al. (1996) functionally defined spatial and temporal

scales based on characteristic behaviors that occur at

different rates, so grazing behavior was investigated in a

continuum from bite up to home range. The underlying

relationships between plants and grazing animals have

been investigated in relation to variations in behavior

over time and space (Bailey and Provenza 2008).

Provenza et al. (2013) pointed out that current behaviors

are often consequences of past conditions, and that many

consequences are delayed in time and distant in space.

Those approaches were important to understand land-

scape utilization by the grazing animal, which is critical

for management of rangelands and pastures.

Grazing systems are now being re-designed to link

production with environmental management to meet the

desired multifunctional aspects of grasslands (Kemp and

Michalk 2007; Boval and Dixon 2012). Grazing man-

agement has been assessed in terms of reducing the

Harry Stobbs Memorial Lecture 139


environmental impact of the most intensive systems, so

the multifunctional role of the grassland ecosystem

becomes an important component of grazing systems.

Doré et al. (2011) presented this paradigm of ecological

intensification, based on intensification in the use of the

natural functionalities that ecosystems offer. In some

way, this demand for a multifunctional role for pastures

arose before grazing behavior research became a com-

ponent of grazing management. Provenza et al. (2013)

criticized the “reductionistic control of researchers” and

their traditional inability to create innovative practices.

In fact, the current grazing behavior research scenario is

more complex. Kemp and Michalk (2007) stated that the

achievement of desirable outcomes in grassland man-

agement that satisfy multiple objectives will require new

areas of research that seek viable solutions for farmers

and society. Whether grazing ecology can support these

new outcomes is not totally clear, but there is evidence

that grazing management, which promotes higher indi-

vidual animal production (e.g. moderate grazing), fosters

both environmental parameters (see Carvalho et al.

2011).

The atom of the grazing process: harvesting bites in

homogeneous and heterogeneous pastures

Grazing is an essential component of pastoral farming,

and affects ecosystem properties and functions

(Carvalho et al. 2013). In general, grazing herbivores

select plants and morphological components in order to

optimize nutrient intake, as well as minimizing energy

cost and intake of harmful phytochemicals.

Laca and Ortega (1996) defined bite as the atom of

grazing. The grazing animal gathers thousands of bites

throughout the day, which ultimately defines daily dry

matter intake and animal performance (Figure 1).

Allden and Whittaker (1970) provided the mechanis-

tic basis to study this process, first defining forage intake

as components of grazing behavior, i.e. the product of

bite mass, bite rate and grazing time. This classical paper

was influential in underpinning the effects of pasture

structure on intake, and describing the reciprocal rela-

tionship between bite mass and bite rate.

Grazing time was then depicted in terms of meal

number and duration (Rook 2000), while daily dry mat-

ter intake was a consequence of intake per meal and the

number of meals during the day (Gibb 1998).

Shipley (2007) argued the importance of bite scale, as

it falls at the very bottom of the foraging hierarchy. Any

systematic error grazing animals make in selecting bites

will be compounded over days, seasons and lifetimes.

With increasing time and spatial scales of the grazing

process, the influence of abiotic factors in determining

daily dry matter intake increases (Bailey et al. 1996).

Therefore, grazing behavior is highly bite scale depend-

ent (Fryxell et al. 2001).

Figure 1. Spatial and temporal scales of grazing (adapted from Bailey et al. 1996; Cangiano et al. 1999; Bailey and Provenza

2008).

140 P.C.F. Carvalho


Spalinger and Hobbs (1992) developed a mechanistic

model depicting intake rate as an asymptotic function of

bite mass based on three processes of resource acquisi-

tion. Time per bite is described as a function of time

committed to sever and process a bite. Bite mass is the

only component of the grazing process that directly

converts to plant biomass gathered, bite rate and grazing

time being related mainly to the time scale (processing

rates) of the grazing process.

There is an asymptotic relationship between plant bi-

omass and intake rate in herbaceous grasslands (type II

functional response, see Gross et al. 1993), because bite

mass is usually correlated with biomass density (Shipley

2007; Hirata et al. 2010; Delagarde et al. 2011). The

pioneer work of Stobbs (1973a; 1973b) and Chacón and

Stobbs (1976) indicated bite mass was the major pa-

rameter influencing daily dry matter intake in tropical

pastures. Stobbs (1973a; 1973b) highlighted the influ-

ence of bulk density in tropical pastures in imposing

behavioral constraints that would severely limit forage

intake. There has been little follow-up research on this

aspect (but see Carvalho et al. 2001; Benvenutti et al.

2006; Hirata et al. 2010), and the prevailing idea is that

lower animal production in tropical pastures is associat-

ed with low forage quality. Sollenberger and Burns

(2001) reported that tropical pastures produce low-

quality forage with high bulk density of pseudostems,

and will support only low levels of animal performance.

However, da Silva and Carvalho (2005) revisited this

discussion and concluded that pasture structure was

more important in constraining forage intake than previ-

ously supposed. In fact, basing pasture management on

degree of canopy light interception and avoiding stem

development has supported new management strategies

(e.g. Montagner et al. 2012), resulting in unexpected

high levels of animal production.

The meta-analysis presented in Figure 2 demonstrates

novel evidence of how tropical pasture structure influ-

ences forage intake. The results suggest that grazing

animals take more time to gather a given bite mass in

tropical than in temperate pastures. The intercept of the

model refers to the time to prehend the bite, independ-

ently of bite mass. The regression coefficient refers to

the time to process a bite with increasing bite mass.

There are many implications of these models in discuss-

ing the functional response of grazing animals, but for

the purposes of this paper it is worth noting that tropical

pasture structure is time jeopardizing. Consequently, the

low daily dry matter intakes registered in animals graz-

ing tropical pastures cannot be a function of only poor

forage quality, as previously suggested by da Silva and

Carvalho (2005). This is particularly significant when

total foraging time cannot compensate for the higher

time per bite demanded for biting tropical forages, a

condition commonly observed in pastures with low

forage masses or high-demanding animals.

Figure 2. Temperate pastures (○, solid line): 1 – Lolium

multiflorum (Amaral et al. 2013); 2 – Avena strigosa sward

under continuous, and 3 – rotational stocking (Mezzalira

2012); 4 – Lolium multiflorum, Avena strigosa and avena +

ryegrass mixture (G.C. Guzatti, pers. comm.). Tropical pas-

tures (●, dotted line): 5 – Cynodon sp. under rotational, and 6

– continuous stocking (Mezzalira 2012); 7 – Sorghum bicolor

under rotational, and 8 – continuous stocking (Fonseca et al.

2013); 9 – Brachiaria brizantha under rotational stocking (da

Trindade 2007); 10 – natural grassland under continuous

stocking (Bremm et al. 2012); 11 – Pennisetun glaucum under

rotational stocking (Mezzalira et al. 2013a). Regression equa-

tions have been generated for each species in each experiment,

and then compared by parallelism test and equality of inter-

cepts (P<0.05). There are no differences between stocking

methods in each group of pastures. Temperate pastures model:

y = 0.457x + 0.800; R2

= 0.724; P<0.0001; s.e. = 0.142; n =

98. Tropical pastures model: y = 0.395x + 1.166; R2

= 0.489;

P<0.0001; s.e. = 0.239; n = 185.

Carvalho et al. (2009) argued that pasture structure is

both cause and consequence of the grazing process.

Defoliation provokes differential tissue removal, altering

vegetation competition and plant growth patterns; thus

pasture structure is altered by defoliation. At the same

time pasture structure determines defoliation patterns

and forage intake, ultimately determining body condition

and fitness of animals. In heterogeneous pastures, these

cause and consequence relationships are more evident,

contrasting structures being built by distinct grazing

intensities (Cruz et al. 2010). Regardless of the scale-

dependency of this heterogeneity (Laca 2008), a chal-

lenging environment results, where grazing animals

constantly need to sample to be able to correctly per-

ceive it.

Grazing animals face potential bites to be harvested

in a vegetation continuum. Diet selection, as a result of

Bite mass (g)

Tim

e p

er

bit

e(s

)



internal and external signals perceived by the animal

(Gregorini et al. 2009a, 2009b; Villalba et al. 2009),

determines which bites will be effectively gathered. The

more complex the grazing environment, the greater the

difference (beneficial) between the diet selected and the

average botanical and chemical composition of the vege-

tation. Excessive grazing intensities decrease floristic

and functional diversity in complex heterogeneous pas-

tures, diminishing the difference between forage offered

and selected. In this circumstance, grazing intensity

determines that plant species with avoidance strategies

are the only successful ones in the vegetation communi-

ty. In contrast, moderate grazing promotes floristic and

functional diversity, because defoliation patterns allow

for a diverse community, comprising plant species with

both tolerance and avoidance mechanisms (Briske 1999;

Skarpe 2001).

The benefits of diversity are well known in terms of

primary (Huyghe et al. 2012) and secondary productivity

(Dumont and Tallowin 2011) in grassland ecosystems.

Grazing animals respond positively to diversity and

generally select mixed diets even when a unique diet is

possible. This is classically demonstrated by the rye-

grass-white clover model and the associated preference

studies (Parsons et al. 1994a). However, there are fewer

illustrations in natural heterogeneous pastures. In this

context, bite diversity and its relationship with grazing

management are illustrated by a long-term trial, where

pasture structures resulted from various grazing intensi-

ties applied over 26 years. Biting behavior was described

by visual assessment and classified, generating bite

structural types (see Agreil and Meuret 2004, Figure 3).

Figure 3. Bite types recorded for heifers grazing native

Pampa vegetation in subtropical Brazil. Bite types attempt to

separate bites based on the physical structure of the plant part

consumed and on biting behavior. The codes for each bite type

appear below the drawings and are used again in Figure 4.

The mass of each bite type is estimated by the hand-

plucking method (Bonnet et al. 2011), so cumulative

forage intake and diet selection can be described visually

bite by bite. Figure 4 illustrates bite structural diversity

and the associated range in mass observed at high (4%

daily forage allowance) and moderate (12% daily forage

allowance) grazing intensities.

Characteristics of vegetation communities resulting

from grazing management determine the array of

bite options potentially available to the grazing animal.

At higher grazing intensities, bite diversity is lower (9

bite types among 33 species), as a consequence of de-

creasing species and vegetation structural diversity by

overgrazing.

Figure 4. Comparison of the structural diversity of bites

gathered by heifers in continuous stocking on native vegeta-

tion managed under low (4%, top) or medium (12%, bottom)

daily forage allowance (kg dry matter in relation to kg live

weight). The codes reported on the X-axis correspond with a

classification of observed bites based on the physical structure

of the plant part consumed (as illustrated in Figure 3). The Y-

axes represent the range in bite mass assessed for each struc-

tural type of bite. Horizontal lines are median values; boxes

include the central 50% of the bite mass distribution; and

vertical dashed lines the smaller between the entire distribu-

tion and two standard deviations. The bite type “Gra” is out of

scale and follows a different scale for bite mass reported on

the right.

Bite

ma

ss for “G

ra” b

ites (g

) B

ite m

ass fo

r “Gra

” bite

s (g)

Bit

e m

ass

(g

) B

ite

ma

ss (

g)

Type of bite

4% forage allowance

12% forage allowance

Type of bite

142 P.C.F. Carvalho


In contrast, moderate grazing promotes species and

vegetation structural diversity, so grazing animals are

able to gather 22 different bite types among more than

60 plant species (bite masses ranging from 0.01 to

4.025 g). Consequently, the possibility of acquiring

nutrients and secondary plant compounds in order to

consume an optimal combination of nutrients (Revell et

al. 2008) is enhanced. Shipley (2007) reported the cen-

tral role of bite masses offered by plants in determining

intake rates within and among patches. Delagarde et al.

(2001) reviewed bite masses of growing cattle in homo-

geneous temperate pastures and reported a maximum of

0.7 g per bite, in comparison with the 3.5 g of “Gra” bite

type observed with moderate grazing in this example. It

is worth noting that bite masses of the same bite type are

higher at moderate grazing, reflecting plant structural

benefits (i.e. plant height) by decreasing grazing intensi-

ty. Therefore, grazing animals under moderate grazing

can gather bites of different types and higher masses.

Under similar conditions, da Trindade et al. (2012)

registered higher daily dry matter intake, and Carvalho et

al. (2011) reported highest animal production, support-

ing the idea that grazing animals respond positively to

the diversity of bite options.

Ingestive behavior generating tools for grazing

management: homogeneous pastures

Assuming bite mass is the main determinant of intake

rate, which in turn ultimately defines animal production,

for purposes of grazing management it seems reasonable

to define pasture management targets based on pasture

structures that optimize bite mass. This situation applies

particularly where output from pastoral farming systems

is fundamentally oriented to animal production (but see

Carvalho et al. 2013 for potential converging with envi-

ronmental outputs), and based on homogeneous sown

pastures. In this context a question emerges: what would

be the best pasture structure to be offered to a grazing

animal, assuming that bite mass is the main indicator of

this condition? Figure 5 illustrates this reasoning.

The overall response patterns of bite mass and short-

term intake rate to pasture height are similar, despite the

two contrasting growth habits of the forage species and

grazing methods (Mezzalira 2012). Bite mass and short-

term intake rate are highly correlated and indicate simi-

lar optimal pasture structures. At low pasture heights,

bite mass, and so intake rate, is constrained mainly by

bite depth, which is well registered in the literature (Laca

et al. 1992, 2001; Flores et al. 1993; Gregorini et al.

2011). At higher pasture heights, bite mass and intake

rate decrease, a phenomenon less commonly registered.

Figure 5. Bite mass and short-term intake rate (STIR) as a

function of pasture height in four experiments: (a) and (b) with

Cynodon sp.; and (c) and (d) with Avena strigosa under (o)

rotational stocking, or (●) continuous stocking. Models: (a)

Cynodon sp. – bite mass (mg DM/bite) = 0.97 - 0.003(20.64 -

x)2, if x<20.64, or 0.001(x - 20.64)

2, if x>20.64; P<0.0001; R

2

= 0.43; s.e. = 0.2379; n = 36; (b) Cynodon sp. – STIR (g

DM/min) = 39.16 - 0.20(18.34 - x)2, if x<18.34, or - 0.06(x -

18.34)2, if x>18.34; P<0.0001; R

2 = 0.65; s.e. = 6.9358; n =

36; (c) Avena strigosa – bite mass (mg DM/bite) = 1.31 -

0.0011(39.84 - x)2, if x<39.84, or 0.005 (x - 39.84)

2, if

x>39.84; P<0.0001; R2 = 0.68; s.e. = 0.2235; n = 36; (d) Avena

strigosa − STIR (g DM/min) = 50.86 - 0.05(35.39 - x)2, if x<

35.39, and - 0.05(x - 35.39)2, if x>35.39; P<0.0001; R

2 = 0.78;

s.e. = 6.1943; n = 36. (From Mezzalira 2012).

Bit

e m

ass

(g

DM

/bit

e)

ST

IR (

g D

M/m

in)

Bit

e m

ass

(g

DM

/bit

e)

ST

IR (

g D

M/m

in)

Pasture height (cm)

Pasture height (cm)

Pasture height (cm)

Pasture height (cm)



This fact is related to the increasing time per bite associ-

ated with decreasing bulk density in the upper pasture

layers.

Stobbs (1973a; 1973b) described this process in trop-

ical pastures, but not the fundamental cause. This

phenomenon has been observed with similar response

curves in other tropical pastures, e.g. Panicum maximum

cv. Tanzania (Marçal et al. 2000), Panicum maximum

cv. Mombaça (Palhano et al. 2007) and Sorghum bicolor

(Fonseca et al. 2013), in studies aiming to define the

optimal pasture structure for grazing animals. In the

context of grassland management, this structural indica-

tor defines the optimal pasture structure at the feeding

station level for continuous stocking. Theoretically,

average pasture height in continuous stocking would be

in between the pasture currently being grazed (optimal

height) and pasture recently grazed (50% of optimal

height, see above). This optimal average pasture height

can be identified by protocols, where different pasture

heights are maintained by continuous stocking and re-

gression curves used to determine the optimal average

height (e.g. da Silva et al. 2012). However, these types

of grazing experiments are delineated at higher spatio-

temporal scales and do not define the optimal pasture

structure at bite/feeding station level.

In terms of rotational stocking, this optimal structure

at bite level can be regarded as a target for pre-grazing

structure of pasture. At bite level, there is no difference

between grazing methods in the definition of the optimal

structure, as shown in Figure 5. This probably indicates

that tiller size/number compensation (Sbrissia and da

Silva 2008) does not affect dry matter gathered in the

same bite volume.

In contrast, with continuous stocking, where animals

rarely bite in succeeding layers and there is no direct

control of the defoliation interval, a second question

emerges: what would be the best pasture structure to be

left after a visit by the grazing animal? The underlying

question regards the harvest efficiency definition and the

characterization of an “optimal post-grazing pasture

structure”, which is highly correlated with animal pro-

duction.

When animals enter a new paddock (e.g. strips in ro-

tational stocking), there is a succession of potential bites

available in succeeding layers (Ungar 1998; Baumont et

al. 2004). Bites are taken progressively from upper

layers to the bottom, each succeeding layer constraining

bite volume by reducing bite depth and area (Ungar et al.

2001). Nutrient concentration in the bite volume de-

creases as the layer being grazed approaches the soil

surface. This situation is analogous to the gain function,

while an animal resides in a patch (see Marginal Value

Theorem, Charnov 1976). Departure rules predicted by

the model consider the decreasing intake rates experi-

enced by the animal at patch level. This picture is similar

to rotational stocking, except for the fact that it is the

manager who decides departure time (i.e. change for a

new strip). This decision defines post-grazing pasture

structure. In general, the manager defines the period of

occupation (residence time) and grazing density in order

to increase harvest efficiency, so post-grazing masses are

commonly very low.

Therefore, an anthropogenic point-of-view defines

departure rules based on vegetation indicators under

rotational grazing of domestic herbivores in agricultural

systems. Carvalho (2005) proposed instead that animal

ingestive behavior should define departure rules, mim-

icking animals’ nature. This proposal is exemplified by

Figure 6, where short-term intake rate is described along

gradients of grazing down in relation to pre-grazing

pasture structure (height).

Figure 6. Short-term intake rate during the grazing down (%

reduction of initial pasture height) in Sorghum bicolor (□;

Fonseca et al. 2012) and Cynodon sp. (■; Mezzalira 2012).

Initial pasture height and models: Sorghum bicolor − 50 cm; y

= 0.16 + 0.001(40 - x), if x>40, and y = 0.16, if x<40; R2

=

0.81; P<0.0001; EPM = 0.014; Cynodon sp. − 19 cm; y =

0.16, if x<37, and y = 0.16 + 0.006(37 - x), if x>37; R2

= 0.73;

P<0.0001.

Both experiments consider the initial pre-grazing pas-

ture height would maximize bite mass and intake rate.

Hence, when animals enter the paddock (beginning of

the ‘grazing down’) and the first bites are taken, pasture

structure is considered ideal and intake rate is at a max-

imum. Despite contrasting pasture structures, the overall

response function was similar for the 2 pastures. As

‘grazing down’ progresses, short-term intake rate is

initially constant, and then decreases linearly as forage

mass is depleted. Short-term intake rate in Cynodon sp.

pastures decreases at a faster rate, because succeeding

layers are more restricting to bite formation than in

Sorghum bicolor.

0.20

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

ST

IR (

g D

M/m

in/k

g L

W)

Grazing down level (%)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

144 P.C.F. Carvalho


It is worth noting that the constancy in intake rate

with the contrasting pasture structures is interrupted at

similar depletion heights of the pasture (40% reduc-

tion). This phenomenon is associated with pasture

structural changes as a consequence of changing the

availability of different plant morphological parts in

lower grazing horizons. Preferred leaves become scarce

and pseudostem, stem and dead material become pre-

dominant in succeeding lower pasture layers (Baumont

et al. 2004; Benvenutti et al. 2006; Drescher et al. 2006).

Fonseca et al. (2013) demonstrated that the number of

grazing jaw movements per unit dry matter ingested

started to increase from the same point where intake rate

started to fall (Figure 7). The results illustrate that

animals encounter increasing difficulty in gathering bites

as the residence time imposed by the manager in a pas-

ture increases. After a forage depletion of 40% of the

initial pasture height, the efficiency of nutrient harvest-

ing per unit time of bite formation decreases sharply.

Figure 7. Grazing jaw movements (GJM) per g of dry matter

(DM) during grazing down (% reduction of the initial pasture

height) in: (a) Cynodon sp. (□; Mezzalira 2012); and (b)

Sorghum bicolor (■; Fonseca et al. 2013). Initial sward surface

height and models: Sorghum bicolor − 50 cm; y = 1.32, if

x<40, and y = 1.32 + 0.0005(40 - x)2, if x>40; R

2 = 0.636; P =

0.0004; s.e. = 0.20; n = 15; and Cynodon sp. − 19 cm; y =

1.97, if x<42.5, and y = 1.97 + 0.013(42.5 - x)2, if x>42.5; R

2

= 0.898; P<0.0001; s.e. = 1.82; n = 13.

In general, the residence time of the animals is extended

beyond this point in order to reach maximum harvesting

efficiency levels (Figure 8), forcing animals to consume

structural non-preferred items (Ginnett et al. 1999;

Benvenutti et al. 2006; Drescher et al. 2006). A green

leafy pasture regrowth is also mentioned as justification

for this common management practice.

Figure 8. Proportion of leaf laminas in different proportions

of grazing down in: Sorghum bicolor (■; Fonseca et al.

2012b); and Cynodon sp. sward (□; Mezzalira 2012). Models:

Sorghum bicolor − 50 cm; y = 51.87 + 0.33(40 - x), if x>40,

and y = 51.87, if x<40; R2

= 0.50; P = 0.0044; s.e. = 10.55; n =

15; and Cynodon sp. − 19 cm; y = 31.93 + 0.45(31 - x), if

x>31, and y = 31.93, if x<31; R2

= 0.71; P = 0.0002; s.e. =

5.53; n = 14.

The issue of how many grazing horizons would be

exploited is a matter associated only with rotational

stocking, as animals rarely exploit succeeding grazing

horizons in a grazing patch in continuous stocking, as

previously mentioned. However, this discussion de-

serves attention, because rotational stocking is a grazing

method where the managers mostly control the defolia-

tion process. To address the dynamics and boundaries of

the succeeding grazing horizons, it is necessary to refer

to the defoliation process at tiller level.

Wade (1991) first demonstrated that animals defoliate

tillers to a constant proportion of their height, which was

verified by several authors (e.g. Laca et al. 1992;

Cangiano et al. 2002), although Griffths et al. (2003) and

Benvenutti et al. (2008a) found different responses under

specific conditions. Figure 9 illustrates this phenomenon

with different animal species grazing different pasture

structures. Hodgson et al. (1994) referred to this singu-

larity as the “concept of a constant proportionality of

herbage removal”. The mechanistic bases of this con-

stancy are not totally understood, but probably are

related to forces required to fracture stems (Griffiths and

Gordon 2003; Benvenutti et al. 2008b).



GJM

pe

r g

of

DM

(n

um

) G

JM p

er

g o

f D

M (

nu

m)


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

ost

-gra

zin

g

lea

f la

min

as

(%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90



Figure 9. Relationship between bite depth and extended tiller

height in: (∆) sheep and (▲) beef heifers grazing natural

grassland (Gonçalves et al. 2009); (♦) beef heifers grazing

Avena strigosa (Mezzalira 2012); (■) beef heifers grazing

Brachiaria brizantha (da Trindade 2007); (+) sheep grazing

Festuca arundinacea and Dactylis glomerata (Carvalho et al.

1998); (o) horses in five cvv. of Cynodon sp. (Dittrich et al.

2005); (Ж) ponies in Cynodon sp. and Paspalum paniculatum

(Dittrich et al. 2007); (□) dairy cows in Avena strigosa

(Lesama et al. 1999); (y = 1.1 + 0.52x; R2

= 0.8391; s.e. = 1.9;

P<0.0001; n = 203).

This particular biting behavior suggests the existence

of grazing horizons, which was proposed by Carvalho

(1997). According to Palhano et al. (2006), the highest

grazing probability of the uppermost horizons is not a

passive preference only. Bite mass is maximized in taller

pastures as demonstrated by Laca et al. (1994). Thus

pastures can be viewed as sets of superimposed grazing

horizons (compartments of bites), with the probability of

grazing the lowest horizons increasing as the uppermost

layers are progressively grazed (Ungar and Ravid 1999;

Baumont et al. 2004). Ungar et al. (2001) described this

scenario by observing heifers taking bites from the up-

permost grazing horizon, almost exclusively, until

approximately three-quarters of its surface area had been

removed. Fonseca et al. (2013) registered similar hori-

zon use patterns with different pasture structures under

field conditions. Figure 10 presents the changes in the

short-term intake rate of grazing animals with the pro-

gressive diminution of residual non-grazed surface area

during grazing down of pastures.

Data presented show intake rate is constant until two-

thirds of the uppermost surface layer is grazed. It is

assumed that the initial constancy in intake rate reflects

animals gathering the maximum bite masses available in

the uppermost layer (where higher bite depths are ex-

perienced). As grazing down progresses, average pasture

height decreases, but animals continue to gather bites in

previously ungrazed areas (bite mass almost constant),

so intake rate remains constant despite pasture depletion

(Carvalho et al. 2001). This situation persists until two-

thirds of the first layer is harvested. At this point, it

Figure 10. Changes in short-term herbage intake rate (STIR)

with reduction in the proportion of non-grazed area [% of

initial pasture height (PH), L. Fonseca, pers. comm.]: (●) dairy

heifers in Cynodon sp. sward under continuous stocking; (○)

beef heifers in Avena strigosa sward under continuous stock-

ing; (▼) dairy heifers in Cynodon sp. sward under rotational

stocking; and beef heifers in Sorghum bicolor swards

under rotational stocking. Model: y = 0.143, if x>31, and y =

0.143 - 0.003 (31 - x), if x<31; R2

= 0.5566; s.e. = 0.03;

P<0.0001; n = 71.

seems that the search for preferred ungrazed areas be-

comes unrewarding (searching costs sensu Parsons et al.

1994b), and grazing of the lower grazing horizon com-

mences as its relative preference increases, as predicted

by Baumont et al. (2004). The progression by animals to

exploit different grazing horizons is probably not abrupt,

but the large decrease in short-term intake rate after two-

thirds of initial pasture height is depleted illustrates the

huge decline in potential intake rates with succeeding

grazing horizons.

The grazing management aspect that emerges from

this discussion is: how long should animals stay on a

pasture when the manager controls the departure rules?

The earlier they are moved to a new strip, the higher is

individual dry matter intake per unit time, but the lower

is total dry matter intake per unit area. The longer they

stay, the lesser the individual dry matter intake but the

amount of forage harvested per unit area is greater.

These contrasting goals of maximizing animal dry mat-

ter intake and pasture harvest efficiency highlight the

fundamental ecological dilemma encountered in pastoral

farming systems: the incapacity to reach both purposes

of optimization simultaneously (Briske and Heitschmidt

1991). Consequently, for a manager to determine the

optimal time when animals should depart from a strip

under rotational stocking, which rule does the manager

respect? In other words, do only pasture utilization goals

define these management strategies?

The context presented here suggests ingestive behav-

ior must be taken into account in defining grazing

management, whether or not intake maximization is a

Extended tiller height (cm)

Bit

e d

ep

th (

cm)

Non-grazed area (% of initial PH)

ST

IR (

g D

M/m

in/k

g L

W)

(∆)

25

20

15

10

5

0

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 0 10 20 30 40 50

100 80 60 40 20 0

146 P.C.F. Carvalho


goal. However, it is important to remember that second-

ary productivity in pastoral systems ultimately supplies

the income and not pasture harvested per se.

If one considers the statements of the Foraging Theo-

ry (Stephens and Krebs 1986) in relation to the natural

behavior of grazing animals, optimizing nutrient con-

sumption per unit time is a prime factor in animal

behavior. In this sense, it seems reasonable to aim at

mimicking natural behavior in order to optimize animal

production in agricultural systems. However, optimizing

individual animal intake has effects on post-grazing

mass dynamics that need to be addressed.

Ingestive behavior generating tools for grazing

management: heterogeneous pastures

Grazing behavior can provide behavioral indicators as a

tool to quantify the value of “foodscapes” (sensu Searle

et al. 2007). Among proposed behavioral indicators, bite

formation and foraging velocity were described as ani-

mals’ decisions directly determining intake rate, which

in turn influence daily dry matter intake. Despite Searle

et al. (2007) suggesting there were limitations in using

vegetation indicators to assess landscape value, as herbi-

vore species perceive the same parameters (e.g. forage

mass) differently, Carvalho et al. (2008) argued that

plant functional characteristics could provide an adjunct

to behavioral indicators as bases for assessing landscape

condition and management. Plant functional types and

bite structural diversity are closely linked. For example,

Cruz et al. (2010) demonstrated how leaf dry matter

content and specific leaf area were indicators of over-

grazing. In considering potential indicators for

functional assessments in pastoral ecosystems, and as-

suming pasture structure is simultaneously both cause

and consequence in the grazing process, ingestive behav-

ior would be considered a short-term indicator, while

sward structure behaves as a long-term indicator of

landscape value and ecosystem functioning (Carvalho et

al. 2008).

Under continuous stocking, animals spend more time

in grazing activities when pasture structure constrains

intake (Pinto et al. 2007; Thurow et al. 2009). Animals

generally increase their grazing time by decreasing the

number of grazing meals and increasing the duration of

each meal (Mezzalira et al. 2012a). Since meal duration

is reciprocal to meal duration interval, low forage allow-

ance provokes a decrease in the interval between meals.

At very low forage allowances, Mezzalira et al. (2012a)

reported only 3 daily meals, each one lasting on average

190 minutes, for heifers grazing heterogeneous natural

pastures.

During a meal, animals adapt their grazing behavior

in order to allocate more or less time to harvesting and

searching for forage. Mezzalira et al. (2012a) reported

that, at low forage allowances, 510 minutes were devot-

ed to forage harvesting (83% of total grazing time),

while at high forage allowances this activity was re-

stricted to 271 minutes (57% of total grazing time). In

contrast, the time devoted to searching for forage was

restricted to 107 minutes at low herbage allowances

(17% of daily grazing time), and more than 180 minutes

(43% of daily grazing time) at higher herbage allowanc-

es. Studies by C.E. Pinto (pers. comm.), using GPS

collars, indicate that in natural pastures being grazed at

high grazing intensities (5 cm sward height), animals can

walk 3.2 km compared with 1.7 km at moderate grazing

intensity (19.4 cm sward height). It was estimated that

animals might increase their energetic requirements by

more than 25% in such a situation.

In response to different pasture structures, animals al-

ter their dynamics of herbage acquisition, patterns of

movement and use of feeding stations. Gonçalves et al.

(2009) demonstrated bite mass was the main determinant

of intake rate in natural grasslands. Considering the

preferred inter-tussock strata, intake rate is maximized at

heights around 10.0 and 11.5 cm for ewes and heifers,

respectively (Figure 11). The authors reported that under

intake-limiting conditions, both cattle and sheep visit a

larger number of feeding stations, harvesting fewer bites

and remaining less time at each feeding station, a behav-

ior that is in agreement with the Optimum Foraging

Theory (see Prache et al. 1998).

Further, animals move faster, but with fewer steps be-

tween feeding stations, indicating an attempt to increase

the rate of encountering potential feeding stations. These

behavioral responses change in the opposite direction as

pasture characteristics become more favorable to herb-

age harvesting, reaching a similar plateau for each

animal species.

These results indicate short-term intake rate is

maximized at intermediate pasture heights. Thus,

a question arises regarding vegetation dynamics in com-

plex heterogeneous pastures, because intermediate

levels of grazing intensity increase the frequency of less

preferable plants and/or structures. Consequently, the

frequency and distribution of non-preferred items in

pastures can present a challenge to the grazing animal.

Mezzalira et al. (2013b) reported that increasing forage

allowance allows greater selectivity, and therefore an

increase in non-preferred area (tussock frequency in

Figure 12).

The number of non-tussock feeding stations decreases

linearly with the increase in herbage allowance due to



Figure 11. Short-term intake rate: (a) by heifers (■; Y =

- 0.326 + 0.178x - 0.0077x2; R

2 = 0.9229; SD = 0.04;

P<0.001), and sheep (□; Y = - 0.016 + 0.113x - 0.0056x2; R

2 =

0.7342; SD = 0.05; P<0.001); and (b) time per feeding station

(▲; Y = 3.95 + 2.1x - 0.09x2; R

2 = 0.6995; s.e. = 1.1;

P<0.0001); and steps per feeding station (∆; Y = -0.83 + 0.55x

- 0.03x2; R

2 = 0.6191; s.e. = 0.3; P<0.0001) by heifers and

sheep in natural grasslands under different pasture heights

(adapted from Gonçalves et al. 2009).

Figure 12. Frequency of tussocks () y = 28.6 + 8.71x -

0.279x2; R

2 = 0.924; SD = 5.1; P = 0.036; number of feeding

stations effectively grazed every 10 steps (▲) y = 12.38 -

1.003x + 0.041x2; R

2 = 0.906; SD = 0.4; P = 0.005; and poten-

tial encounter rate of non-tussock feeding stations (♦) y = 9.85

- 0.248x; R2

= 0.641; SD = 0.9; P = 0.017; of heifers grazing

in natural grassland under distinct forage allowances (Mezza-

lira et al. 2013b).

an increase in tussock frequency. Initially, at lowest

forage allowances, the number of effectively grazed

feeding stations is similar to the number of encountered

feeding stations, with practically no rejected feeding

stations. With the increase in forage allowance, the

proportion of feeding stations effectively grazed de-

creases, indicating that animals express higher

selectivity in the choice of the feeding stations they used.

Furthermore, the fact that the proportion of feeding

stations effectively grazed decreases more rapidly than

the potential encounter rate of non-tussock feeding stations

(distance between the two dotted declining lines in Fig-

ure 12) reflects the additional cost for the animal of

searching for preferred feeding stations during the selec-

tion process.

A slight increase in the proportion of effectively

grazed feeding stations is noticed when forage allowance

reaches 11%, which corresponds to a 6 cm pasture

height. Then, a strong inversion occurs in those process-

es, until most of the feeding stations found along the

path of displacement are used at 14% forage allowance

(7.5 cm sward height), interpreted as a reduction in

selectivity.

Mezzalira et al. (2013b) suggest this may be associat-

ed with the increasing percentage of tussocks, which is

close to 40% at 14% herbage allowance. In fact, animal

performance reaches a maximum at forage allowances of

12% (Pinto et al. 2008; Nabinger et al. 2011; Mezzalira

et al. 2012b), and data from Bremm et al. (2012) support

the conclusion that at tussock frequency above ~35%,

intake rate of animals is decreased by the costs related to

the time spent avoiding tussocks when searching for

better feeding stations. However, this impact depends on

the animal species, as evidence suggests that, for each

1% increase in frequency of tussocks, time spent grazing

on the inter-tussock areas by heifers reduces by 0.6%,

while the reduction by ewes is only 0.36% (Bremm et al.

2012).

The effect of frequency distribution of non-preferred

food items upon the accessibility of the preferred diet

item for grazing animals was studied by Bremm et al.

(2012). Ewes adjusted their foraging strategies and

maintained a constant short-term intake rate regardless

of percentage of tussock cover. Beef heifers exhibited

the highest short-term intake rate with 34% tussock

cover (Figure 13).

Bite mass of beef heifers decreased when tussock

cover increased above 44%, whereas no trend was de-

tected for ewes. Data demonstrated that non-preferred

items might act as a vertical and/or horizontal barrier,

interfering with the process of bite formation and affect-

ing bite mass of beef heifers.

Forage allowance (kg DM/100 kg LW)

Tu

ssock

(%)

ST

IR (

g D

M/m

in/k

g L

W0

.75)

Tim

e p

er

fee

din

g s

tati

on

(s)

Ste

ps p

er fe

ed

ing

statio

n (n

)

(a)

(b)

Pasture height (cm)

Fe

ed

ing

sta

tio

n (

n)

148 P.C.F. Carvalho


Figure 13. Grazing behavior patterns (STIR – short-term

intake rate, BM – bite mass, BR – bite rate) of beef heifers

grazing a natural grassland with distinct percentages of tus-

sock cover of Eragrostis plana, assumed as the non-preferred

food item (Bremm et al. 2012).

Considering the influence of pasture height of tus-

socks (non-preferred) and inter-tussock areas (preferred)

in determining ingestive behavior in heterogeneous

pastures, Figure 14 explores boundaries of pasture tar-

gets for continuous stocking and its impact on short-term

intake rate.

Figure 14. Relationship between tussock frequency (%) and

inter-tussock pasture height (cm) in determining dry matter

intake rate (STIR, mg DM/min/kg LW) of beef cattle grazing

natural grasslands in southern Brazil. Data calculated from

Goncalves et al. (2009) and Bremm et al. (2012).

It is assumed that short-term intake rate is well corre-

lated with animal performance, and the frequency of

tussocks and the inter-tussock pasture height as a model

of the balance between non-preferred and preferred

items, respectively. Response curves in Figure 14 show

intake rate is depressed when pasture height is lower

than 10 cm or tussock frequency is higher than 35%,

with pasture height affecting intake rate proportionately

in a more pronounceable form.

These boundaries are subsiding recommendations and

support new management targets for natural grasslands

in southern Brazil. Formerly, tussocks were viewed only

as undesirable components of natural grassland ecosys-

tems.

Recent grazing behavior experiments have demon-

strated that grazing animals use tussocks in order to

gather strategic high bite masses throughout the day (see

Figure 4), contributing to a diverse diet. Tussocks are

good indicators of grazing intensity management, be-

cause they are normally associated with higher grazing

intervals (allowing plant strategies for resource conser-

vation typical of tussock plants, with low rates of

herbage accumulation and high leaf life span). Hence, if

moderate grazing is being recommended to foster both

animal production and ecosystem services (Carvalho et

al. 2011), it is inevitable there will be low levels of less

preferred items. Formerly, farmers tended to cut tus-

socks in order to recover presumed wasted areas,

regardless of tussock frequency levels. Nowadays, they

are requested to interfere only when tussock frequency

exceeds 35%, when there is a probability that animal

production will decline.

Innovations in grazing management: From bites to

farmers

According to van den Pol-van Dasselaar (2012), the pop-

ularity of pastoral farming systems based on grazing is

declining in Europe. Labor is an important factor to

consider, as average herd size is increasing, and large

herds are difficult to manage. This explains why contin-

uous stocking is attracting new interest in Europe, and at

the same time illustrates the lack of innovation in graz-

ing management.

Carvalho et al. (2013) reported a contrasting situation

in the favorable tropics (i.e. Brazil), where new under-

standing of underlying processes at the plant-animal

interface has resulted in recent improvements in animal

production from grasslands. Da Silva and Nascimento Jr

(2007) reviewed trends in grassland management to-

wards the planning of sound and efficient management

practices, and concluded that targets developed for tropi-

cal pastures based on pasture structure are changing

paradigms related to grassland management. Canopy

light interception and dynamics of forage accumulation

are being linked with pasture targets and supporting new

management strategies for both continuous and rota-

tional stocking methods (e.g. da Silva et al. 2012;

Montagner et al. 2012), so old forage cultivars are reach-

ing new unexperienced animal production levels.

Besides, animal-based pasture targets oriented to

maximize instantaneous intake rate for grazing dairy

cows are being proposed to support new rotational stock-

Pa

stu

re h

eig

ht

(cm

)

Tussock (%)

STIR

STIR BM BR

Percentage of tussock cover (%)



ing strategies aiming to maximize the intake of herbage

per unit grazing time (Fonseca et al. 2012). As presented

earlier, grazing behavior research indicated pre-grazing

pasture targets in order to optimize intake rate, which is

maintained at a high level if pasture is not depleted more

than ~40% of the initial pre-grazing pasture height

(“take the best and leave the rest” rule, concept adapted

from Provenza et al. 2003). In order to illustrate how

these insights can support pasture management at a farm

level, a successful extension program named PISA

(Produção Integrada de Sistemas Agropecuários1), cur-

rently being applied in Brazil, is briefly described.

PISA is a sustainable intensification production mod-

el oriented to increase food production at farm and

landscape levels, based on sustainable pillars as no-till

conservation agriculture, animal welfare, integrated

crop-livestock systems, traceability and certification of

farm products, among other good farming practices. It is

not oriented to any specific agricultural sector, and its

ambition is to diminish environmental impacts, while

enhancing food security in the context of sustainable

intensification.

In southern Brazil it involves mainly small-scale

dairy operations, encompassing presently 575 families in

25 municipalities, which are the dominant farm type. In

general dairy cows are fed maize silage + concentrate

(60−70% of the diet) and annual temperate (mainly

Lolium multiflorum and Avena strigosa) or tropical

(mainly Sorghum bicolor, Pennisetum glaucum and

Cynodon sp.) pastures (30−40% of the diet). On average,

farmers milk 14 cows, for a total daily milk production

of approximately 150 liters.

Many management interventions have been imple-

mented during the 3-year duration of PISA, but

modifications in grazing management have produced the

most important short-term effects. In general, pastures

are managed under rotational systems, with fixed resting

periods designed to favor biomass accumulation. The

period of occupation and stocking density are oriented to

maximize forage harvest efficiency so as to use all for-

age accumulated. Post-grazing forage mass is viewed as

waste. Two daily milking periods, occurring prior to

dawn and to dusk, restrict grazing time (see consequen-

ces in Chilibroste et al. 2007; Mattiauda et al. 2013).

PISA modifies the prevailing production pattern and

aims to make pastures the main nutrient source for ani-

mals. Grazing management is modified in order to

1 PISA is a public-private initiative led by MAPA (Brazilian Ministry of

Agriculture). Farmers apply voluntarily to the program, and the Universities

are responsible for proposed technologies. The Program is funded by

SEBRAE/SENAR/FARSUL, a public-private partnership, and technologies are applied at farm level by SIA private consultants capacitated in PISA.

enhance animal nutrient consumption per unit time. The

basis for this strategy is ingestive behavior (pasture

structure that maximizes bite mass), as mentioned earli-

er. Pasture management targets are defined to optimize

dry matter intake rate, assuming that nutrient consump-

tion is optimized at the same time. Pre-grazing and post-

grazing pasture heights are defined so cows can always

ingest forage at the highest intake rates, making maxi-

mum use of the few hours animals can devote to grazing.

This is particularly important in dairy systems, where

cows have a limited period to gather forage by grazing.

Table 1 shows proposed pasture targets based on grazing

behavior and bite mass maximization being applied at

farm level.

The layout of pastures rotationally stocked using this

management concept changes to the use of fewer subdi-

visions of larger size. Farmers appreciate this, because it

results in lower labor requirement. Post-grazing pasture

mass is high, so overall pasture structure equates with

that of continuously stocked pasture moderately grazed.

Accordingly, this proposed “take the best and leave the

rest rule” is colloquially named “rotatinuous stocking”.

Resting periods are flexible due to typical fluctuations in

pasture growth, and are usually one-third of resting

periods previously applied. Post-grazing pasture mass is

high, but as resting period is very low (usually less than

a week for tropical and annual temperate pastures),

senescence and tiller recruitment are apparently main-

tained at reasonable levels, again similar to continuous

stocking at moderate grazing. Finally, post-grazing

pasture structure does not deteriorate during the grazing

period, and pasture growth seems to be continuously

located at the linear phase of the classical sigmoid model

of pasture accumulation (see Parsons and Chapman

2000). At the moment, part of this process is empirically

described, but there is current research quantifying those

fluxes. The rapid increase in soil organic matter meas-

ured in PISA farms indicates high carbon sequestration

promoted by pasture growth, and supports the hypothesis

of almost uninterrupted pasture growth with “rotatinuous

stocking” strategy.

Since the lactating cows graze only the upper parts of

the plants, the contribution of pasture dry matter in the

total diet is increased, decreasing silage and concentrate

consumption by almost half. On average, milk yield per

cow rose by 30%, reducing feeding costs by 20% at the

end of the first year of the PISA program. The number

of lactating cows per farm expanded from 14 to 19 in

the first year, reflecting increases in pasture production

due to the constancy of leaf area able to intercept light

and capture solar energy. Consequently, annual milk

yield per farm increased from 4800 to 11 250 kg/ha.

150 P.C.F. Carvalho


Table 1. Pasture targets based on grazing behavior and bite

mass maximization being applied at farm level.

Forage species Pasture

target*

(cm)

Reference

Sorghum bicolor 50 Fonseca et al. 2012

Pennisetum glaucum 60 Mezzalira et al. 2013a

Cynodon sp. 19 Mezzalira 2012

Native grassland (mainly 11.5 Gonçalves et al. 2009

Paspalum notatum,

Axonopus affinis,

Desmodium incanum and

Paspalum plicatulum)

Panicum maximum cv. 30 Zanini et al. 2012

Aruana

Panicum maximum cv. 95 Palhano et al. 2006

Mombaça

Avena strigosa 29 Mezzalira 2012

Lolium multiflorum 19 D.F.F. Silva, pers. comm.

*Pasture targets are considered the pasture structure where

bite mass is maximized. In rotational stocking pasture, target

refers to pre-grazing pasture height. Post-grazing pasture

height should not exceed 40−50% of the pre-grazing height. In

continuous stocking, it refers to optimal pasture height at the

patch being grazed (average pasture height being lower).

There are a few farmers with more than 3 years in PISA,

and these have reached more than 17 000 kg/ha. The

social impact in those communities has been quite sig-

nificant.

The overall technological packages and the way they

are applied at farm level are more complex than de-

scribed here. However, it is worth noting that

“rotatinuous stocking” based on grazing behavior in-

sights is the pathway in the short-term by which other

technologies can ultimately be applied (e.g. no-till or

diversity in crop rotations). In contrast with many other

technologies (e.g. no-till to increase soil carbon stocks),

increased milk production derived from changes in

grazing management is “a week time scale response”, so

farmers became confident to accept additional structural

changes in their activities. It is exciting to monitor farm-

ers’ responses throughout this process, how they are

initially reactive to change for a new grazing manage-

ment orientation, how they overestimate the role of

silage (apprehension to not have enough feed for cows),

and how they rapidly become adapted to looking at

pasture structure, and not only cow body condition.

Concluding remarks

Building multifunctional pastoral farming systems re-

quires that managers cannot dictate grassland manage-

ment only by their anthropogenic assessment. Mimick-

ing nature increases the possibility of creating sound

production systems and promoting sustainable intensifi-

cation. In this context, managers would learn with

grazing animals in order to reproduce their behavioral

requirements in commercial operations. An understand-

ing of grazing behavior is essential to support grassland

management and innovative grazing systems, as demon-

strated by the PISA case study based on the “rotatinuous

grazing” strategy.

Appropriate use of grazing behavior can support in-

novations in grassland management, but this is not the

current trend, because the anthropogenic way of thinking

determines management actions based on human goals

(e.g. forage harvest efficiency), that rarely correspond

with animal goals. Reconciliation is needed for all agri-

cultural systems that suffer from side-effects originating

from human pre-potency. In this sense, there is huge

potential to include consideration of grazing behavior

when making primary management decisions in grass-

land ecosystems, as the visionary Harry Stobbs

identified so many years ago.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to CNPq for the award of a fel-

lowship, and to J.C. Mezzalira, L. Fonseca, Olivier J.F.

Bonnet and Carolina Bremm for their helpful comments

on the manuscript.

References

Agreil C; Meuret M. 2004. An improved method for quantify-

ing intake rate and ingestive behaviour of ruminants in

diverse and variable habitats using direct observation.

Small Ruminant Research 54:99–113.

Allden WG; Whittaker IAMcD. 1970. The determinants of

herbage intake by grazing sheep: The interrelationship of

factors influencing herbage intake and availability. Aus-

tralian Journal of Agricultural Research 21:755–766.

Amaral MF; Mezzalira JC; Bremm C; da Trindade JK; Gibb

MJ; Suñe RWM; Carvalho PC de F. 2013. Sward struc-

ture management for a maximum short-term intake rate in

annual ryegrass. Grass and Forage Science 68:271–277.

Bailey DW; Provenza FD. 2008. Mechanisms determining

large-herbivore distribution. In: Prins HHT; van

Langeveld F, eds. Resource ecology: Spatial and temporal

dynamics of foraging. Frontis Series, Wageningen, The

Netherlands. p. 7−29.

Bailey DW; Gross JE; Laca EA; Rittenhouse LR; Coughenour

MB; Swift DM; Sims PL. 1996. Mechanisms that result in

large herbivore grazing distribution patterns. Journal of

Range Management 49:386–400.

Baumont R; Cohen-Salmon D; Prache S; Sauvant D. 2004. A

mechanistic model of intake and grazing behaviour in



sheep integrating sward architecture and animal decisions.

Animal Feed Science and Technology 112:5–28.

Benvenutti MA; Gordon IJ; Poppi DP. 2006. The effect of the

density and physical properties of grass stems on the for-

aging behaviour and instantaneous intake rate by cattle

grazing an artificial reproductive tropical sward. Grass

and Forage Science 61:272–281.

Benvenutti MA; Gordon IJ; Poppi DP. 2008a. The effects of

stem density of tropical swards and age of grazing cattle

on their foraging behavior. Grass and Forage Science

63:1–8.

Benvenutti MA; Gordon IJ; Poppi DP; Crowther R; Spinks W.

2008b. Foraging mechanics and their outcomes for cattle

grazing reproductive tropical swards. Applied Animal Be-

havioral Science 113:15–31.

Benvenutti MA; Gordon IJ; Poppi DP; Crowther R; Spinks W;

Moreno FC. 2009. The horizontal barrier effect of stems

on the foraging behaviour of cattle grazing five tropical

grasses. Livestock Science 126:229–238.

Bonnet O; Hagenah N; Hebbelmann L; Meuret M; Shrader

AM. 2011. Is hand plucking an accurate method of esti-

mating bite mass and instantaneous intake of grazing

herbivores? Rangeland Ecology & Management 64:366–

374.

Boval M; Dixon RM. 2012. The importance of grasslands for

animal production and other functions: A review on man-

agement and methodological progress in the tropics.

Animal 6:748–762.

Bremm C; Laca EA; Fonseca L; Mezzalira JC; Elejalde DAG;

Gonda HL; Carvalho PFC. 2012. Foraging behaviour of

beef heifers and ewes in natural grasslands with distinct

proportions of tussocks. Applied Animal Behavioral Sci-

ence 141:108–116.

Briske DD. 1999. Plant traits determining grazing resistance:

Why have they proved so elusive? Proceedings of the 6th

International Rangeland Congress, Townsville, Qld, Aus-

tralia. p. 901-905.

Briske DD; Heitschmidt RK. 1991. An ecological perspective.

In: Heitschmidt RK; Stuth JW, eds. Grazing management:

An ecological perspective. Timber Press, Portland, OR,

USA. p. 11−26.

angiano A; Fem ndez ; Galli JR. 1999. Conpast 3.0:

Programa de computación para la estimación del consumo

de bovinos en pastoreo. INTA (Instituto Nacional de Tec-

nología Agropecuaria), Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Cangiano CA; Galli JR; Pece MA; Dichio L; Rozsypalek SH.

2002. Effect of live weight and pasture height on cattle

bite dimensions during progressive defoliation. Australian

Journal of Agricultural Research 53:541–549.

Carvalho PCF. 1997. A estrutura da pastagem e o comporta-

mento ingestivo de ruminantes em pastejo. In: Jobim CC;

Santos GT; Cecato U, eds. Avaliação de pastagens com

animais. Maring , PR, Brazil. p. 25−52.

Carvalho PCF. 2005. O manejo da pastagem como gerador de

ambientes pastoris adequados à produção animal. In:

Pedreira CGS; Moura JC; Silva SC; Faria VP, eds. Teoria

e prática da produção animal em pastagens. Piracicaba,

SP, Brazil. p. 7−32.

Carvalho PCF; Prache S; de Moraes A. 1998. Profundidade do

bocado de ovinos em pastagens de Dactilis e Festuca.

Anais da 35 Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de

Zootecnia, Botucatu, SP, Brazil.

Carvalho PCF; Ribeiro Filho HMN; Poli CHEC; Delagarde R.

2001. Importância da estrutura da pastagem na ingestão e

seleção de dietas pelo animal em pastejo. Anais da 38

Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia: A

produção animal na visão dos brasileiros, Piracicaba, SP,

Brazil. p. 853−871.

Carvalho PCF; Gonda HL; Wade MH; Mezzalira JC; do

Amaral MF; Gonçalves EN; dos Santos DT; Nadin L; Poli

CHEC. 2008. Características estruturais do pasto e o con-

sumo de forragem: O quê pastar, quanto pastar e como se

mover para encontrar o pasto. Proceedings of 4th Sympo-

sium on Strategic Management of Pasture and 2nd

International Symposium on Animal Production under

Grazing, Viçosa, MG, Brazil. p. 101−130.

Carvalho PCF; Mezzalira JC; Fonseca L. 2009. Do bocado ao

sítio de pastejo: Manejo em 3D para compatibilizar a

estrutura do pasto e o processo de pastejo. 7 Simpósio de

Forragicultura e Pastagem, Lavras, MG, Brazil. p.

116−137.

Carvalho PCF; Bremm C; Mezzalira JC; da Trindade JK;

Nascimento Jr D. 2011. How can grazing behavior re-

search at the bite to patch scales contribute to enhance

sustainability of rangeland livestock production systems?

Proceedings of the IX International Rangeland Congress –

Diverse rangelands for a sustainable society. Rosario,

Argentina. p. 565−571.

Carvalho PCF; Barioni LG; Freua MC; Boval M. 2013.

Environmental challenges of pastoral farming systems in

tropical areas. Journal of Animal Science. (Accepted)

Chacón E; Stobbs T. 1976. Influence of progressive defolia-

tion of a grass sward on eating behaviour of cattle.

Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 27:709–727.

Charnov EL. 1976. Optimal foraging: The marginal value

theorem. Theoretical Population Biology 9:129–136.

Chilibroste P; Soca PP; Mattiauda DA; Bentancur O; Robin-

son PH. 2007. Short term fasting as a tool to design

effective grazing strategies for lactating dairy cattle: A re-

view. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research

47:1075–1084.

Cruz P; de Quadros FLF; Theau JP; Frizzo A; Jouany C; Duru

M; Carvalho PCF. 2010. Leaf traits as functional de-

scriptors of the intensity of continuous grazing in native

grasslands in the South of Brazil. Rangeland Ecology &

Management 63:350–358.

da Silva SC; Carvalho PCF. 2005. Foraging behaviour and

intake in the favourable tropics/sub-tropics. In:

McGilloway DA, ed. Grassland: A global resource.

Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The

Netherlands. p. 81−95.

152 P.C.F. Carvalho


da Silva SC; Nascimento Jr D. 2007. Avanços na pesquisa

com plantas forrageiras tropicais em pastagens: Carac-

terísticas morfofisiológicas e manejo do pastejo. Revista

Brasileira de Zootecnia 36:121–138.

da Silva SC; Gimenes FMA; Sarmento DOL; Sbrissia AF;

Oliveira DE; Hernández-Garay A; Pires AV. 2012. Graz-

ing behaviour, herbage intake and animal performance of

beef cattle heifers on marandu palisade grass subjected to

intensities of continuous stocking management. Journal of

Agricultural Science 151:727−-739.

DOI: 10.1017/S0021859612000858

da Trindade JK. 2007. Modificaçōes na estrutura do pasto e no

comportamento ingestivo de bovinos durante o rebaixa-

mento do capim-marandu submetido a estratégias de

pastejo rotacionado. M.Sc. Thesis. Escola Superior de

Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, Universidade de São Pau-

lo, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.

da Trindade JK; Pinto CE; Neves FP; Mezzalira JC; Bremm

C; Genro TCM; Tischler MR; Nabinger C; Gonda HL;

Carvalho PCF. 2012. Forage allowance as a target of graz-

ing management: Implications on grazing time and forage

searching. Rangeland Ecology & Management 65:

382–393.

Delagarde R; Prache S; D’ our P; Petit M. 2001. Ingestion de

l’herbe par les ruminants au pâturage. Fourrages 166:189-

212.

Delagarde R; Faverdin P; Baratte C; Peyraud JL. 2011.

GrazeIn: A model of herbage intake and milk production

for grazing dairy cows. 2. Prediction of intake under rota-

tional and continuously stocked grazing management.

Grass and Forage Science 66:45–60.

Dittrich JR; Carvalho PCF; de Moraes A; Lustosa SBC;

Silveira EO; Oliveira EB. 2005. Preferência de equinos

em pastejo: Efeito da altura de dosséis de gramíneas do

gênero Cynodon. Archives in Veterinary Science 10:

61–67.

Dittrich JR; Carvalho PCF; de Moraes A; de Oliveira EB;

Dittrich RL; Oikawa M; de Souza FTV; dos Santos F.

2007. Comportamento ingestivo de equinos em pastejo

sobre diferentes dosséis. Ciência Animal Brasileira 8:

87–94.

Doré T; Makowski D; Malézieux E; Munier-Jolain N;

Tchamitchian M; Tittonell P. 2011. Facing up to the para-

digm of ecological intensification in agronomy: Revisiting

methods, concepts and knowledge. European Journal of

Agronomy 34:197–210.

Drescher M; Heitkonig IMA; Raats JG; Prins HHT. 2006. The

role of grass stems as structural foraging deterrents and

their effects on the foraging behaviour of cattle. Applied

Animal Behavioral Science 101:10–26.

Dumont B; Tallowin JRB. 2011. Management and species

diversity. In: Lemaire G; Hodgson J; Chabbi A, eds.

Grassland productivity and ecosystem services. CAB In-

ternational, Wallingford, UK. p. 129−137.

Flores E; Laca EA; Griggs TC; Demment MW. 1993.

Sward height and vertical morphological-differentiation

determine cattle bite dimensions. Agronomy Journal

85:527–532.

Fonseca L; Mezzalira JC; Bremm C; Filho RA; Gonda HL;

Carvalho PCF. 2012. Management targets for maximizing

the short-term herbage intake rate of cattle grazing in Sor-

ghum bicolor. Livestock Science 145:205–211.

Fonseca L; Carvalho PCF; Mezzalira JC; Bremm C; Galli JR;

Gregorini P. 2013. Effect of sward surface height and

level of herbage depletion on bite features of cattle graz-

ing Sorghum bicolor swards. Journal of Animal Science

91:1–9.

Fryxel JM; Fortin CBD; Wilmshurst J. 2001. On the scale

dependence of foraging in terrestrial herbivores. Proceed-

ings of the XIX International Grassland Congress, São

Pedro, SP, Brazil. p. 271−275.

Gibb MJ. 1998. Animal grazing/intake terminology and defi-

nitions. Pasture ecology and animal intake. In: Keane

MG; O’Riordan EG, eds. Proceedings of Workshop on

Pasture Ecology and Animal Intake, September 1996. Oc-

casional Publication No. 3. Concerted Action, AIR-CT93-

0947, Dublin, Ireland. p. 21−37.

Ginnett TF; Dankosky JA; Deo G; Demment MW. 1999.

Patch depression in grazers: The roles of biomass distribu-

tion and residual stems. Functional Ecology 13:37–44.

Goncalves EN; Carvalho PCF; Devincenzi T; Lopes MLT;

Freitas FK; Jacques AVA. 2009. Plant-animal relation-

ships in a heterogeneous pastoral environment: Dis-

placement patterns and feeding station use. Brazilian

Journal of Animal Science 38:2121–2126.

Gregorini P. 2012. Diurnal grazing pattern: Its physiological

basis and strategic management. Harry Stobbs Memorial

Lecture 2012. Animal Production Science 52:416–430.

Gregorini P; Soder KJ; Kensinger RS. 2009a. Effects of ru-

men fill on short-term ingestive behavior and circulating

concentrations of ghrelin, insulin and glucose of dairy

cows foraging vegetative micro-swards. Journal of Dairy

Science 92:2095–2105.

Gregorini P; Gunter SA; Beck PA; Caldwell J; Bowman MT;

Coblentz WK. 2009b. Short-term foraging dynamics of

cattle grazing swards with different canopy structures.


Gregorini P; Gunter SA; Bowman MT; Caldwell JD; Masino

CA; Coblentz WK; Beck PA. 2011. Effect of herbage de-

pletion on short-term foraging dynamics and diet quality

of steers grazing wheat pastures. Journal of Animal Sci-

ence 89:3824–3830.

Griffiths WM; Hodgson J; Arnold GC. 2003. The influence of

sward canopy structure on foraging decisions by grazing

cattle. II. Regulation of bite depth. Grass and Forage Sci-

ence 58:125–137.

Griffiths WM; Gordon IJ. 2003. Sward structural resistance

and biting effort in grazing ruminants. Review article. An-

imal Research 52:145–160.

Gross JE; Shipley LA; Hobbs NT; Spalinger DE; Wunder BA.

1993. Foraging by herbivores in food concentrated patch-

es: Test of a mechanistic model of functional response.

Ecology 74:778–791.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859612000858



Herrero M; Grace D; Njuki J; Johnson N; Enahoro D; Silvestri

S; Rufino MC. 2013. The roles of livestock in developing

countries. Animal 7:3–18.

Hirata M; Kunieda E; Tobisa M. 2010. Short-term ingestive

behaviour of cattle grazing tropical stoloniferous grasses

with contrasting growth forms. Journal of Agricultural

Science 148:615–624.

Hodgson J. 1985. The significance of sward characteristics in

the management of temperate sown pastures. Proceedings

of the XV International Grassland Congress, Kyoto, Ja-

pan. p. 63–67.

Hodgson J; Clark DA; Mitchell RJ. 1994. Foraging behavior

in grazing animals and its impact on plant communities.

In: Fahey GC, ed. Forage quality and utilization. Ameri-

can Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA. p.

796−827.

Humphreys LR. 2007. The evolving science of grassland

improvement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK.

Huyghe C; Litrico I; Surault F. 2012. Agronomic value and

provisioning services of multi–species swards. In: Go-

li ski P; Warda M; Stypinski P, eds. Grassland: A

European Resource? Proceedings of the 24th

General

Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, 3−7 June

2012, Lublin, Poland. p. 35−46.

Kemp DR; Michalk DL. 2007. Towards sustainable grassland

and livestock management. Journal of Agricultural Sci-

ence 145:543–564.

Kemp DR; Michalk DL. 2011. Livestock production styles

and managing grassland ecosystems. In: Lemaire G;

Hodgson J; Chabbi A, eds. Grassland productivity and

ecosystem services. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

p. 53−62.

Laca EA. 2008. Foraging in a heterogeneous environment:

Intake and diet selection. In: Prins HH; van Langeveld F,

eds. Resource Ecology: Spatial and Temporal Dynamics

of Foraging. Frontis Series, Wageningen, The Nether-

lands. p. 7−29.

Laca EA; Ungar E; Seligman E; Demment MW. 1992. Effects

of sward height and bulk-density on bite dimensions of

cattle grazing homogeneous swards. Grass and Forage

Science 47:91–102.

Laca EA; Ungar ED; Demment MW. 1994. Mechanisms of

handling time and intake rate of a large mammalian graz-

er. Applied Animal Behavioral Science 39:3–19.

Laca EA; Ortega IM. 1996. Integrating foraging mechanisms

across spatial and temporal scales. Proceedings of the 5th

International Rangeland Congress, Salt Lake City, UT,

USA. p. 129−132.

Laca EA; Shipley LA; Reid ED. 2001. Structural anti-quality

characteristics of range and pasture plants. Journal of

Range Management 54:413–419.

Lemaire G; Hodgson J; Chabbi A. 2011. Grassland productivi-

ty and ecosystems services. CAB International,

Wallingford, UK.

Lesama MF; Carvalho PCF; de Moraes A. 1999. Estrutura da

pastagem e profundidade do bocado de vacas leiteiras:

Efeito da espécie forrageira e da aplicação de nitrogênio.

Anais da 36 Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de

Zootecnia, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.

Marçal GK; Carvalho PCF; Ribeiro Filho HMN; Trindade JK;

Santos RJ; Nabinger C; Poli CHEC. 2000. Pastagens altas

podem limitar a ingestão de forragem dos animais? XII

Salão de iniciação científica e IX Feira de iniciação cientí-

fica, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. p. 116−117.

Mattiauda DA; Tamminga S; Gibb MJ; Soca P; Bentancur O;

Chilibroste P. 2013. Restricting access time at pasture and

time of grazing allocation for Holstein dairy cows:

Ingestive behaviour, dry matter intake and milk produc-

tion. Livestock Science 152:53–62.

Mezzalira JC. 2012. Taxa de ingestão potencial em pastejo:

Um estudo contrastando pastos de clima temperado e tro-

pical. Ph.D. Thesis. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande

de Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. http://goo.gl/cBxFSf

Mezzalira JC; Bremm C; da Trindade JK; Nabinger C; Car-

valho PCF. 2012a. The ingestive behaviour of cattle in

large-scale and its application to pasture management in

heterogeneous pastoral environments. Journal of Agricul-

tural Science & Technology A2:909–916.

Mezzalira JC; Carvalho PCF; da Trindade JK; Bremm C;

Fonseca L; do Amaral MF; Reffatti MV. 2012b. Animal

and vegetal production of a natural pasture under different

forage allowances for cattle. Ciência Rural 42:1264–1270.

Mezzalira JC; Carvalho PCF; Amaral MF; Bremm C;

Trindade JK; Gonçalves EN; Genro TCM; Silva RWSM.

2013a. Rotational grazing management in a tropical pas-

ture to maximize the dairy cow’s herbage intake rate.

Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinaria e Zootecnia

65:833–840.

Mezzalira JC; Bremm C; da Trindade JK; Gonda H;

Vieira PC; Carvalho PCF. 2013b. Ingestive behaviour

from the feeding station to patch level in heterogeneous

environments. Journal of Animal Science Advances. (ac-

cepted)

Milne JA; Gordon IJ. 2003. New directions in grazing ecology

research – a synthesis. Workshop on New Directions in

Research in Grazing Ecology, Macaulay Land Use Re-

search Institute, Scotland, UK.

Montagner DB; do Nascimento Jr D; Vilela HH; Sousa BML;

Euclides VPB; da Silva SC; Carloto MN. 2012. Tillering

dynamics in pastures of guinea grass subjected to grazing

severities under intermittent stocking. Revista Brasileira

de Zootecnia 41:544–549.

Nabinger C; Carvalho PCF; Pinto CE; Mezzalira JC; Brambi-

lla DM; Boggiano P. 2011. Servicios ecosistémicos de las

praderas naturales: ¿Es posible mejorarlos con más pro-

ductividad? Archivos Latinoamericanos de Producción

Animal 19:27–34.

Palhano AL; Carvalho PCF; Dittrich JR; Moraes A; Silva SC;

Monteiro ALG. 2006. Padrões de deslocamento e procura

por forragem de novilhas leiteiras em pastagem de capim-

mombaça. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 35:2253–2259.

http://goo.gl/cBxFSf

154 P.C.F. Carvalho


Palhano AL; Carvalho PCF; Dittrich JR; Moraes A; Silva SC;

Monteiro ALG. 2007. Forage intake characteristics on

mombaça grass pastures grazed by Holstein heifers. Bra-

zilian Journal of Animal Science 36:1014–1021.

Parsons AJ; Newman JA; Penning PD; Harvey A; Orr RJ.

1994a. Diet preference of sheep: Effects of recent diet,

physiological state and species abundance. Journal of

Animal Ecology 63:465–478.

Parsons AJ; Thornley JHM; Newman JA; Penning PD. 1994b.

A mechanistic model of some physical determinants of in-

take rate and diet selection in a two-species temperate

grassland sward. Functional Ecology 8:187–204.

Parsons AJ; Chapman DF. 2000. The principles of pasture

growth and utilisation. In: Hopkins A, ed. Grass: Its pro-

duction and utilisation. 3rd Edn. Blackwell Science,

Oxford, UK. p. 31−89.

Pinto CE; Carvalho PCF; Frizzo A; Fontoura Jr JAS; Nabinger

C; Rocha R. 2007. Comportamento ingestivo de novilhos

em pastagem nativa no Rio Grande do Sul. Brazilian


Pinto CE; Fontoura Jr JAS; Frizzo A; Freitas TMS; Nabinger

C; Carvalho PCF. 2008. Produções primária e secundária

de uma pastagem natural da Depressão Central do Rio

Grande do Sul submetida a diversas ofertas de fitomassa

aérea total. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 37:1737–

1741.

Prache SIJ; Gordon IJ; Rook AJ. 1998. Foraging behavior and

diet selection in domestic herbivores. Annales de Zoo-

technie 47:1–11.

Provenza FD; Villalba JJ; Dziba LE; Atwood SB; Banner RE.

2003. Linking herbivore experience, varied diets and plant

biochemical diversity. Small Ruminant Research 49:257–

274.

Provenza F; Pringle H; Revell D; Bray N; Hines C; Teague R;

Steffens T; Barnes M; Rittenhouse L. 2013. Complex cre-

ative systems: Principles, processes and practices of

transformation. Rangelands 35(5):6−13.

DOI: RANGELANDS-D-13-00013.1

Revell DK; Durmic Z; Bennell M; Sweeney GC; Vercoe PE.

2008. The in situ use of plant mixtures including native

shrubs in Australian grazing systems: The potential to

capitalise on plant diversity for livestock health. In: Skaife

JF; Vercoe PE, eds. Ethnoveterinary Medicine Confer-

ence: Harvesting Knowledge, Pharming Opportunities.

ambridge University Press, ambridge, UK. p. 36−49.

Rook AJ. 2000. Principles of foraging and grazing behaviour.

In: Hopkins A, ed. Grass, its production and utilization.

British Grassland Society, urley, UK. p. 229−246.

Sbrissia AF; da Silva SC. 2008. Compensação ta-

manho/densidade populacional de perfilhos em pastos de

capim-marandu. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science

37:35–47.

Searle KR; obbs NT; Gordon IJ. 2007. It’s the “foodscape”,

not the landscape: Using foraging behavior to make func-

tional assessments of landscape condition. Israel Journal

of Ecology and Evolution 53:297–316.

Senft RL; Coughenour MB; Bailey DW; Rittenhouse LR; Sala

OE; Swift DM. 1987. Large herbivore foraging and eco-

logical hierarchies. BioScience 37:789–799.

Shipley LA. 2007. The influence of bite size on foraging at

larger spatial and temporal scales by mammalian herbi-

vores. Oikos 116:1964–1974.

Skarpe C. 2001. Effects of large herbivores on competition

and succession in natural savannah rangelands. In: Tow

PG; Lazenby A, eds. Competition and Succession in Pas-

tures. AB International, Wallingford, UK. p. 175−192.

Sollenberger LE; Burns JC. 2001. Canopy characteristics,

ingestive behaviour and herbage intake in cultivated tropi-

cal grasslands. Proceedings of the XIX International

Grassland Congress, São Pedro, SP, Brazil.

Spalinger DE; Hobbs NT. 1992. Mechanisms of foraging in

mammalian herbivores: New models of functional re-

sponse. American Naturalist 40:325–348.

Stephens DW; Krebs JR. 1986. Foraging theory. Princeton

University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.

Stobbs TH. 1973a. Effect of plant structure on intake of tropi-

cal pastures 1.Variation in bite size of grazing cattle.

Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24:809–819.

Stobbs TH. 1973b. The effect of plant structure on the

intake of tropical pastures. II. Differences in sward struc-

ture, nutritive value and bite size of animals grazing

Setaria anceps and Chloris gayana at various stages of

growth. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research

24:821–829.

Thurow JM; Nabinger C; Castilhos ZMS. 2009. Estrutura da

vegetação e comportamento ingestivo de novilhos em pas-

tagem natural do Rio Grande do Sul. Brazilian Journal of

Animal Science 38:818–826.

Ungar ED. 1998. Changes in bite area and bite depth during

patch depletion by cattle. In: Gibb MJ, ed. Techniques for

investigating intake and ingestive behaviour by farm ani-

mals. Proceedings of the IXth European Intake Workshop,

IGER, North Wyke, UK. p. 81−82.

Ungar E; Ravid N. 1999. Bite horizons and dimensions for

cattle grazing herbage to high levels of depletion. Grass


Ungar E; Ravid N; Bruckental DI. 2001. Bite dimensions for

cattle grazing herbage at low levels of depletion. Grass


van den Pol-van Dasselaar A. 2012. Innovations in grazing.

In: Goli ski P; Warda M; Stypinski P, eds. Grassland: A

European Resource? Proceedings of the 24th

General

Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, 3−7 June

2012, Lublin, Poland. p. 201−203.

Villalba JJ; Soder KJ; Laca EA. 2009. Understanding diet

selection in temperate biodiverse pasture systems. Range-

land Ecology and Management 62:387–388.

Wade MH. 1991. Factors affecting the availability of vegeta-

tive Lolium perenne to grazing dairy cows with special

reference to sward characteristics, stocking rate and graz-

ing method. Ph.D. Thesis. Université de Rennes, Rennes,

France.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2111/RANGELANDS-D-13-00013.1



Zanini GD; Santos GT; Sbrissia AF. 2012. Frequencies and

intensities of defoliation in Aruana guinea-grass swards:

Morphogenetic and structural characteristics. Revista

Brasileira de Zootecnia 41:1848–1857.

© 2013








Challenges and opportunities for improving eco-efficiency of

tropical forage-based systems to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions

MICHAEL PETERS1, MARIO HERRERO

2, MYLES FISHER

1, KARL-HEINZ ERB

3, IDUPULAPATI RAO

1,

GUNTUR V. SUBBARAO4, ARACELY CASTRO

1, JACOBO ARANGO

1, JULIÁN CHARÁ

5, ENRIQUE

MURGUEITIO5, REIN VAN DER HOEK

1, PETER LÄDERACH

1, GLENN HYMAN

1, JEIMAR TAPASCO

1,

BERNARDO STRASSBURG6, BIRTHE PAUL

1, ALVARO RINCÓN

7, RAINER SCHULTZE-KRAFT

1,

STEVE FONTE1 AND TIMOTHY SEARCHINGER

8

1Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia. www.ciat.cgiar.org

2Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), St Lucia, Qld, Australia. www.csiro.au

3Institute of Social Ecology, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt-Vienna-Graz, Vienna, Austria. www.uni-klu.ac.at 4Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS), Ibaraki, Japan. www.jircas.affrc.go.jp

5Centro para la Investigación en Sistemas Sostenibles de Producción Agropecuaria (CIPAV), Cali, Colombia.

www.cipav.org.co 6International Institute for Sustainability (IIS), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. www.iis-rio.org

7Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria (Corpoica), Villavicencio, Colombia. www.corpoica.org.co

8Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA. wws.princeton.edu

Keywords: Climate change; environmental services; environmental footprint; crop-livestock; tropical grasslands.

Abstract

Forage-based livestock production plays a key role in national and regional economies, for food security and poverty

alleviation, but is considered a major contributor to agricultural GHG emissions. While demand for livestock products

is predicted to increase, there is political and societal pressure both to reduce environmental impacts and to convert

some of the pasture area to alternative uses, such as crop production and environmental conservation. Thus, it is essen-

tial to develop approaches for sustainable intensification of livestock systems to mitigate GHG emissions, addressing

biophysical, socio-economic and policy challenges.

This paper highlights the potential of improved tropical forages, linked with policy incentives, to enhance livestock

production, while reducing its environmental footprint. Emphasis is on crop-livestock systems. We give examples for

sustainable intensification to mitigate GHG emissions, based on improved forages in Brazil and Colombia, and suggest

future perspectives.

Resumen

La producción ganadera a base de forrajes desempeña un papel clave en las economías nacional y regional en cuanto a

seguridad alimentaria y mitigación de la pobreza. No obstante, se considera como un factor importante que contribuye

a las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI) producidos por la agricultura. Mientras que se prevé que la de-

manda de productos pecuarios seguirá en aumento, existe presión política y social para no solo reducir los impactos

ambientales sino también para convertir parte del área en pasturas a usos alternativos como la producción agrícola y la

conservación del medio ambiente. Por tanto, es esencial desarrollar enfoques para la intensificación sostenible de sis-

temas pecuarios para mitigar las emisiones de GEI, abordando desafíos biofísicos, socioeconómicos y políticos.

En este documento se destaca el potencial de los forrajes tropicales mejorados, junto con incentivos a nivel de polí-

ticas, para mejorar la producción pecuaria mientras se reduce su huella ambiental. Se hace énfasis en sistemas mixtos

(cultivos-ganadería) y se dan ejemplos de intensificación sostenible para mitigar las emisiones de GEI con base en

forrajes mejorados en Brasil y Colombia, y se señalan algunas perspectivas para el futuro.

___________ Correspondence: Michael Peters, Centro Internacional de Agricultura

Tropical (CIAT), Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia.


http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/

http://www.csiro.au/

http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/

http://www.jircas.affrc.go.jp/

http://www.cipav.org.co/

http://www.iis-rio.org/

http://www.corpoica.org.co/


157 M. Peters et al.


Global importance of forage-based crop-livestock

systems and the challenge to improve eco-efficiency

Livestock play a central role in global food systems and

thus in food security, accounting for 40% of global agri-

cultural gross domestic product; at least 600 million of

the world’s poor depend on income from livestock

(Thornton et al. 2002). Livestock products supply one-

third of humanity’s protein intake, causing obesity for

some, while remedying undernourishment of others

(Steinfeld et al. 2006). Livestock products are crucial in

the context of global biomass production and consump-

tion systems. Nearly one-third of the global human ap-

propriation of net primary production (HANPP) occurs

on grazing lands (Haberl et al. 2007). In the year 2000,

livestock consumed nearly two-thirds of global biomass

harvest from grazing lands and cropland (Krausmann et

al. 2008). Forage grass is the most consumed feed in the

world (2.3 Gt in 2000), representing 48% of all biomass

consumed by livestock; of this, 1.1 Gt are used in mixed

systems and 0.6 Gt in grazing-only systems (Herrero et

al. 2013a). Grazing lands are by far the largest single

land-use type, estimated to extend over 34–45 Mkm²

(Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011). Grazed ecosystems range

from intensively managed pastures to savannas and

semi-deserts. Additionally, a substantial share of crop

production is fed to livestock. In the year 2000, of the

total of 15.2 Mkm² cropland, approximately 3.5 Mkm²

provided feed for livestock. Thus, producing feed for

livestock uses about 84% of the world’s agricultural land

(Table 1; Foley et al. 2011). The share is even higher in

developing countries (FAO 2009).

Livestock production is a major contributor to green-

house gas (GHG) emissions. Figure 1 shows the spatial

distribution of GHG emission intensities by livestock

(Herrero et al. 2013a). Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is the

global hotspot of high emission intensities, due to low

animal productivity across large areas of arid lands,

where feed is scarce and of low quality, and animals

have low productive potential. Moreover, most rumi-

nants in SSA are raised for meat, and meat production is

associated with lower feed efficiency and higher emis-

sion intensities compared with milk production, by a

factor of 5 or more (Herrero et al. 2013a). Moderate

emission intensities occur throughout the developing

world, in arid regions with large rangeland areas, in

places with important beef production (Amazonia), and

in places where diet intensification in ruminants is low

(large parts of South Asia). In most of the developed

world, emission intensities are low, due to more inten-

sive feeding practices, feed conversion-efficient breeds

of livestock, and temperate climates, where feed quality

is inherently higher.

Herrero et al. (2011) estimate livestock emit 14−18%

of global non-CO2 GHG emissions. An additional 17%

of emissions is attributed to land-use changes related to

agriculture and deforestation for grazing (IPCC 2007).

Expansion of livestock production is often considered a

major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin Amer-

ica, with impacts on biodiversity and the global climate

system (Szott et al. 2000), although the causal relation-

ships are debated (Kaimowitz and Angelsen 2008).

Moreover, overgrazing is claimed a central force of land

degradation, in particular with respect to erosion and soil

Table 1. Global land use.

Land use class Land use (ice-free)

in 2000 Source and remarks

(Mkm²) (%)

a Urban & infrastructure 1.4 1.1 Erb et al. 2007

b Forests under use 35.0 26.8 Erb et al. 2007

c Remote, wilderness (productive) 15.8 12.1 Erb et al. 2007

d Non-productive land 16.2 12.4 Erb et al. 2007

e Cropland 15.2 11.6 Erb et al. 2007; FAO 2011a

f - of which fodder crops 1.4 1.1 Monfreda et al. 2008

g - of which area used for feedstuff production 3.9 3.0 Kastner et al. 2012

h Permanent pastures 34.1 26.1 FAO 2011b

i* Other land, maybe grazed 12.8 9.8 Difference between FAO 2011b and Erb et al. 2007

Agricultural land (e+h+i) 62.1 47.6

Total ice-free (a+b+c+d+e+h+i) 130.5 100.0

Livestock feeding (f+g+h+i) 52.2 40.0 of ice-free land

84.1 of land used for agriculture (e+h+i)

*Productive land not used for forestry, cropping, urban, but also not remote or wild, minus the land used as permanent pastures

(Erb et al. 2007).

Tropical forages and greenhouse gas emissions 158


Figure 1. Global greenhouse gas efficiency per kilogram of animal protein produced (Herrero et al. 2013a).

organic carbon (C) stocks (Vågen and Winowiecki

2013). In low-income countries, the contribution of agri-

culture to overall GHG emissions (as a % of total emis-

sions) is considered to be even greater, with 20% and

50% attributed to agriculture and land-use changes, re-

spectively (The World Bank 2010).

We can expect much more intensification and indus-

trialization in animal production systems in the near to

mid-term future (Delgado et al. 1999; Haan et al. 2010),

as extensive and pasture-based systems move towards

mixed crop-livestock systems (Herrero et al. 2012). Hav-

lik et al. (2013) found that this transition could reduce

GHG emissions without compromising food security.

Reduced methane (CH4) production can result from

land-sparing effects (less area needed to produce feed),

and input-output efficiency gains that reduce the number

of animals required for the same production. Almost

landless, grain-fed livestock systems have economic

advantages in terms of production rates and scale effects,

but can potentially lead to competition in land use for

direct food production (Smith et al. 2010; Erb et al.

2012). Extensive grazing systems that collectively oc-

cupy large areas of land, much of it degraded due to

mismanagement and soil mining, may gradually be

transformed, giving enhanced efficiency in the use of

resources and land. Possible transformations include

switching to monogastric species, using improved breeds

and changing from roughage-based diets to high-

concentrate feedstuffs from cropland.

The global feed market is 1 Gt concentrate DM/yr,

and 5.4 Gt roughage DM/yr. Market feed, such as oil

cakes and cereals, is essential for monogastrics and is

also important in ruminant livestock systems, particu-

larly when they are industrialized. However, ruminants

can digest biomass unsuitable for human food (Erb et al.

2012). Comparing the environmental footprint of sys-

tems requires not only analysis of their direct GHG

emissions but also the environmental costs of feed pro-

duction. For example, transport accounts for 11–12% of

GHG emissions from feedlots in Europe feeding soy-

bean produced in Brazil (Garnett 2011), compared with

feed produced near feedlots in mid-western USA (Pelle-

tier et al. 2010). Furthermore, the potential to mitigate

climate change and other environmental benefits of for-

age-based systems (see following sections) are often not

considered.

Opportunities through forage-based systems to re-

duce GHG emissions

Reducing agriculture’s GHG emissions and increasing C

stocks in the soil and biomass could reduce global GHG

emissions by 5.5−5.9 Gt CO2-equivalent/yr (Olander et

al. 2013). In 2000, non-CO2 emissions from livestock

systems ranged between 2.0 and 3.6 Gt CO2-eq (Herrero

et al. 2013b). These are expected to increase by 70% by

2050. Forage-based systems can mitigate GHG emis-

sions by: (1) increasing C stocks; (2) reducing CH4

emissions per unit of livestock product and net CH4

emissions by reducing animal numbers; and (3) reducing

nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions (Peters et al. 2013).

Improving carbon accumulation

In a meta-analysis of studies on the effects of grassland

management on soil C stocks, three-quarters showed



increases (mean 0.54 t C/ha/yr, n = 167, Conant et al.

2001). Summarizing 74 papers on land-use change, Guo

and Gifford (2002) showed that, compared with forests,

pastures in areas with 2000–3000 mm/yr rainfall have a

higher potential to accumulate soil C. Land-use change

affected soil C stocks, which declined when pastures

were converted to tree plantations and when either for-

ests or pastures were converted to crops. In contrast, soil

C stocks increased when annual crop land was converted

to tree plantations, pastures or secondary forest. When

either forest or savanna was converted to pasture, soil C

stocks increased by 5–12% and 10–22%, respectively

(Powers et al. 2011). When forests are cleared for pas-

tures, most of the above-ground C is lost, but soil C

stocks in the long term either remain the same or in-

crease substantially (Amézquita et al. 2010). In the Co-

lombian Amazon, total C stocks were highest in native

forests, followed by well-managed sown pastures and

silvopastoral systems; degraded pastures and degraded

soils were lowest (Amézquita et al. 2010). In contrast

with annual crops, well-managed pastures maintain soil

cover, reduce fluctuations in soil temperature and add

organic matter (Guo and Gifford 2002).

The main opportunities to mitigate GHG emissions

by increasing soil C stocks are: (i) improved manage-

ment of crops and grasslands; and (ii) restoration of de-

graded lands (Smith et al. 2008). Of the overall C-

mitigation potential, 29% was claimed to be from pas-

ture land (Lal 2010). In Latin America and the Carib-

bean, sown pastures of Brachiaria grasses have a high

potential to increase soil C stocks (Thornton and Herrero

2010).

Sown tropical forages can accumulate large amounts

of C in soil, particularly in the deeper layers (Fisher et

al. 2007). The potential of sown forages under adequate

pasture and animal management to increase C stocks is

second only to forest (Mosier et al. 2004; Fisher 2009).

Pastures in Bahia, Brazil, accumulated only half as much

C as those in the Colombian Llanos, probably because

lower temperatures limited net primary productivity

(Fisher et al. 2007). Pastures generally have the capacity

to accumulate C, but magnitudes and rates are likely to

be site-specific (e.g. Conant et al. 2001; da Silva et al.

2004). The controlling factors are imperfectly under-

stood.

Reducing methane emissions

CH4 from enteric fermentation in ruminants accounts for

25% of GHG emissions from livestock, or 65% of non-

CO2 emissions (Thornton and Herrero 2010). In terms of

CH4 emissions, monogastrics (largely pigs and poultry)

produce protein more efficiently than ruminants. The

comparison is simplistic, however, by not accounting for

the suitability of land only for pasture or feed produc-

tion, and the nutritional value of the produce beyond

protein or the use of by-products (Garnett 2009). Forage

diets with high digestibility plus high energy and protein

concentrations produce less CH4 per unit of meat or milk

produced (Waghorn and Clark 2004; Peters et al. 2013).

Forages integrated in tropical agropastoral systems pro-

vide enhanced soil fertility and more crop residues of

higher quality, giving higher system efficiency (Ayarza

et al. 2007). Use of forages in mixed crop-livestock sys-

tems can not only reduce CH4 emissions per unit live-

stock product but also contribute to the overall GHG

balance of the system (Douxchamps et al. 2012). Dietary

additives such as oils to ruminant feed (Henry and

Eckard 2009), and feeding silage instead of hay

(Benchaar et al. 2001), reduce CH4 emissions by chang-

ing the rumen flora (Henry and Eckard 2009). Con-

densed tannins from some legumes can reduce CH4 pro-

duction in ruminants (Woodward et al. 2004), but they

often reduce feed digestibility leading to lower animal

performance (Tiemann et al. 2008).

Reducing nitrous oxide emissions

The soil microbial processes of nitrification and

denitrification drive N2O emissions in agricultural sys-

tems. Nitrification generates nitrate (NO3-) and is pri-

marily responsible for the loss of soil nitrogen (N) and

fertilizer N by both leaching and denitrification

(Subbarao et al. 2006). Current emissions of N2O are

about 17 Mt N/yr and by 2100 are projected to increase

four-fold, largely due to increased use of N fertilizer. Up

to 70% of fertilizer N applied in intensive cereal produc-

tion systems is lost by nitrification (Subbarao et al.

2012). If this could be suppressed, both N2O emissions

and NO3- contamination of water bodies could be re-

duced substantially.

Some plants release biological nitrification inhibitors

(BNIs) from their roots, which suppress nitrifier activity

and reduce soil nitrification and N2O emission (Subbarao

et al. 2012). This biological nitrification inhibition (BNI)

is triggered by ammonium (NH4+) in the rhizosphere.

The release of the BNIs is directed at the soil microsites

where NH4+ is present and the nitrifier population is

concentrated. Tropical forage grasses, cereals and crop

legumes show a wide range in BNI ability. The tropical

Brachiaria spp. have high BNI capacity, particularly B.

humidicola and B. decumbens (Subbarao et al. 2007).

Brachiaria pastures can suppress N2O emissions and

carrying over their BNI activity to a subsequent crop

might improve the crop’s N economy, especially when

substantial amounts of N fertilizer are applied (Subbarao

et al. 2012). This exciting possibility is currently being

researched and could lead to economically profitable and



ecologically sustainable cropping systems with low nitri-

fication and low N2O emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) (Stehfest and Bouwman 2006) did not consider

BNI in estimating N2O emissions from pastures and

crops. For example, 300 Mha in the tropical lowlands of

South America are savannas with native or sown grasses

such as Brachiaria spp. that have moderate to high BNI

ability. Substantial areas of these savannas have been

converted to production of soybean and maize, which

lack BNI ability. Continuing conversion has important

implications for N2O emissions (Subbarao et al. 2009),

but the impact might be reduced if the system included

agropastoral components with a high-BNI pasture phase

(Ayarza et al. 2007).

Role of silvopastoral systems

Agroforestry is the practice of growing of trees and

crops, often with animals, in various combinations for a

variety of benefits and services. It is recognized as an

integrated approach to sustainable land use (Nair et al.

2009). Agroforestry arrangements combining forage

plants with shrubs and trees for animal nutrition and

complementary uses, are known as silvopastoral systems

(SPSs) (Murgueitio et al. 2011). The main SPSs include

scattered trees in pastures, live fences, windbreaks, fod-

der-tree banks for grazing or cut-and-carry, tree planta-

tions with livestock grazing, pastures between tree alleys

and intensive silvopastoral systems (ISPSs).

The main benefits of SPSs compared with treeless

pastures are: (i) increased animal production per ha (up

to 4-fold) (Murgueitio et al. 2011); (ii) improvement of

soil properties due to increased N input by N-fixing

trees, enhanced availability of nutrients from leaf litter

and greater uptake and cycling of nutrients from deeper

soil layers (Nair et al. 2008); (iii) enhanced resilience of

the soil to degradation, nutrient loss and climate change

(Ibrahim et al. 2010); (iv) higher C storage in both

above-ground and below-ground compartments of the

system (Nair et al. 2010); and (v) improved habitat

quality for biodiversity (Sáenz et al. 2007). ISPSs are a

form of SPSs that combine the high-density cultivation

of fodder shrubs (more than 8000 plants per ha) for graz-

ing with: (i) improved tropical grasses; and (ii) trees or

palms at densities of 100–600 per ha (Calle et al. 2012).

In the 1970s, Australian graziers started sowing

Leucaena leucocephala at high density integrated with

grasses for grazing by cattle. There were about 150 000

ha of this highly productive system in 2006 (Shelton and

Dalzell 2007). In Latin America, ISPSs are being adopt-

ed in Colombia, Mexico, Brazil and Panama (Murgueitio

et al. 2011).

Owing to the positive interactions between grasses

and trees (in particular N-fixing trees), SPSs produce

more DM, digestible energy and crude protein (CP) per

ha than grass-alone pastures and increase the production

of milk or meat, while reducing the need for chemical

fertilizers. Tree incorporation in croplands and pastures

results in greater net C storage above- and below-ground

(Nair et al. 2010). For SPSs, the above-ground C accu-

mulation potential ranges from 1.5 t/ha/yr (Ibrahim et al.

2010) to 6.55 t/ha/yr (Kumar et al. 1998), depending on

site and soil characteristics, the species involved, stand

age and management practices (Nair et al. 2010).

Animals fed with tropical legumes produced 20% less

CH4 than those fed with C4 grasses (Archimède et al.

2011). Thornton and Herrero (2010) estimated that, by

replacing some concentrates and part of the basal diet

with leaves of L. leucocephala, the GHG emissions per

unit of milk and meat produced were 43% and 27% of

the emissions without the legume, respectively. The

mitigation potential was 32.9 Mt CO2-eq over 20 years,

28% coming from the reduction in livestock numbers,

and 72% from C accumulation.

Despite their on- and off-farm benefits, SPSs are not

widely established in the tropics and subtropics. The

main barriers to adoption are financial capital barriers as

SPSs require high initial investment, which is contrary to

the prevailing view of tropical cattle ranching as a low-

investment activity, and knowledge barriers, as the tech-

nical complexity of some SPSs requires specialized

knowledge, which farmers often do not have

(Murgueitio et al. 2011).

Economic analysis and environmental and policy

implications

Adoption of improved forage-based livestock systems

Each of the principal forage-based livestock system al-

ternatives has its environmental costs, benefits and im-

pacts (Table 2). Some of these systems have been shown

to reduce GHG emissions, while improving productivity

(Fearnside 2002). However, the question remains why

adoption of improved forage-based crop-livestock sys-

tems is low. Their adoption is related to the costs and

benefits to the farmer and land, capital, labor and tech-

nology barriers, and depends also on a delicate balance

between short-term benefits as a direct incentive (often

market-related and in situ) and the long-term, usually

environmental and often ex-situ, benefits. Thus, research

on mitigation of climate change by forage-based live-

stock systems must address the trade-offs between the

livelihood concerns of farmers, market- and value-chain-



Table 2. Principal forage-based livestock system alternatives: Environmental costs, benefits and impacts.

System/

technology/

option

Costs and benefits to the farmer Costs and benefits to society

Livelihood

benefits Initial investment

On-going

investment

Climate change

mitigation impacts

Biodiversity

impacts

Hydrological

impacts

Native savannas Limited by low

productivity

Usually little

initial investment

Usually

little or none

Emissions or

sequestrations

depend on stocking

rate and pasture

degradation

Maintained species

biodiversity

Increased

runoff and

soil erosion

when

overstocked

Business as

usual (improved

forage species

but subsequent

pasture

degradation)

Higher animal

production

initially with

decrease as

pastures degrade

Seeds, land

preparation,

planting,

fertilizer; overall

large initial

investment

Usually

very low

Initial reduction in

carbon stocks with

land clearing,

higher biomass in

improved pastures

Reduction in

species diversity

due to monoculture

planting

Increased

runoff with

overstocking;

soil erosion

Improved and

well-managed

pastures

Higher stocking

rate and higher

animal

productivity

Seeds, land

preparation,

planting,

fertilizer; overall

large initial

investment

Fertilizer

Higher biomass in

improved pastures;

carbon

accumulation in the

soil

Reduction in

species diversity

with monocultures,

but could have

positive effects on

soil fauna

Higher water

demand; less

runoff

(Agro-)

Silvopastoral

systems

Income from

livestock;

income in

long-term from

trees; higher

productivity

benefits from

soil maintenance

Forage and tree

seeds, nursery,

land preparation,

planting, fertilizer,

fencing; overall

large initial

investment

Fertilizer

(but

reduced

when N-

fixing trees

are used)

Carbon stocks

increased from

biomass in trees;

carbon

accumulation in the

soil

Biodiversity

benefits from trees

(not great)

Less runoff,

higher

regulation of

discharge,

high water

demand

related incentives, and societal and environmental con-

siderations.

Livelihood considerations for farmers

The nature of livelihood benefits of forage-based sys-

tems for reducing GHG emissions and improving

productivity depends very much on the context of the

farm and the farmer (Table 2). For example, native sa-

vanna systems have low productivity, but require very

little investment by the rancher. If land is abundant,

there may be little incentive to improve these systems

(White et al. 2001). A common alternative scenario is to

replace native vegetation by introduced (“improved”)

forages, which are utilized for many years with little or

no annual maintenance. After the initial investment at

establishment, this system costs little, but pastures will

degrade over time without annual investment in fertiliz-

er, especially if they are overstocked, leading to soil

degradation and loss of productivity. If the sown pasture

is managed with applications of modest amounts of

maintenance fertilizer, usually N and P, and with stock-

ing rates that match pasture productivity, pasture sys-

tems can maintain productivity and reduce GHG emis-

sions for many decades (Peters et al. 2013). More recent-

ly, SPSs combining trees and forages have received in-

creased attention, because of their potential to improve

productivity and reduce GHG emissions (Ibrahim et al.

2007), but the initial investments in these systems are

substantial (see previous section).

Ex-situ environmental considerations

While improved forage-based livestock systems can

improve productivity and mitigate GHG emissions, ex-

situ environmental costs and benefits vary widely with

respect to GHG emissions and impacts on biodiversity

and water (Table 2). Unwise fertilizer use could result in

downstream contamination of the watershed. Where

farmers introduce improved pasture varieties and subse-

quently allow the pastures to degrade, C stocks are sub-

stantially reduced. Compared with degraded pastures,

improved and well-managed systems have many positive

benefits for the hydrological cycle, as they promote in-

creased water holding capacity and reduce runoff and

soil erosion (Peters et al. 2013). Silvopastoral systems

improve soil quality, particularly when they involve N-

fixing trees, provide shade for livestock, accumulate soil

organic carbon, enhance biodiversity compared with

monospecific pastures, and reduce runoff and soil ero-

sion as they regulate the hydrological system (see

above).



Carbon insetting

There are 2 types of carbon market: the regulatory com-

pliance; and the voluntary markets. The compliance

market is used by companies and governments that, by

law, have to account for their GHG emissions. It is regu-

lated by mandatory national, regional or international

carbon reduction regimes. The voluntary market trades

carbon credits on a voluntary basis. The size of these

markets differs considerably. In 2008, the regulated

market traded US$119 billion, while trades on the volun-

tary market were only US$704 million (Hamilton et al.

2009). Carbon insetting refers to any GHG emission

reduction/carbon accumulation activity that is linked to

the supply chain or direct sphere of influence of the

company, which acquires or supports the insetting activi-

ty. Benefits are therefore directly transferred to actors of

the chain including smallholder producers. This can take

the form of credit trading or other forms of compensa-

tion or support for the insetting activity. Carbon-insets

are intended to generate mutual benefits between the

partners, that are additional to the climate change mitiga-

tion itself. On the other hand, carbon offsetting refers to

compensation of GHG emissions outside the company’s

supply chain or sphere of influence, lacking additional

benefits. For most food products, these GHG mitigation

potentials are concentrated at the farm level. Integrating

carbon credit purchases into a company’s own supply

chain, or carbon ‘insetting’ (vs. carbon offsetting), has

multiple benefits. For farmers, it will improve animal

productivity, increase adaptability to climate change and

provide supplementary income. For companies, it will

reduce the environmental ‘hoofprint’ of the livestock

sector and enable companies to keep carbon mitigation

activities within their own supply chain.

Political considerations for use of integrated crop-

livestock systems in Brazil and Colombia

In Brazil and Colombia, as part of national policies, sus-

tainable intensification of pasture/forage-based livestock

production has been recognized as a means to contribute

to mitigating GHG emissions. Improved forages and

agroforestry systems are key strategies in these endeav-

ors. Pathways include both increased C accumulation

through reversing pasture degradation and maximizing

accumulation through tree integration, as well as freeing

land areas for conservation purposes and other agricul-

tural uses.

Brazil

Brazil is the country with the largest forecast increase in

agricultural output until 2050 (Alexandratos and Bruins-

ma 2012), but, in addition to this agricultural expansion,

the country also aims to reduce deforestation in the Am-

azon by 80% and in the Cerrados by 50% of historic

levels by 2020. The latest estimates indicate that Brazil

is on course to reach this target, but there are doubts

about the long-term sustainability of recent reductions. A

major pathway for reaching these ambitious goals simul-

taneously is through the sustainable intensification of

pasture lands (Strassburg et al. 2012). Native and sown

pasturelands (189 Mha) comprise about 70% of Brazil´s

area under agriculture (including forest plantations).

These lands support 212 million cattle (IBGE 2011),

offering substantial scope for increasing stocking rates.

Improvements are also possible in herd management.

For example, Brazil´s slaughter rate of 18% is the lowest

among the top 20 beef-producing countries. The GHG

mitigation potential of improving agriculture, in particu-

lar cattle ranching, has been recognized by the Brazilian

government through its Low Carbon Agriculture Plan

(Plano ABC, Table 3). The recuperation of 15 Mha of

Brazil´s estimated 40 Mha of degraded pastures would

supply two-thirds of planned mitigation activities in the

agricultural sector. This estimate does not include the

associated reduction in deforestation, which is forecast

to mitigate an additional 669 Mt CO2-eq. The ABC plan

also has a target of increasing planted forests from 6 to 9

Mha and treating animal waste, the latter estimated to

mitigate 6.9 Mt CO2-eq.

Table 3. The Low Carbon Agriculture Plan (Plano ABC) in

Brazil (Brasil 2011).

Action Target

area

(Mha)

Associated

mitigation

(Mt CO2-eq)

Recuperation of degraded 15.0 83−104

pasturelands

Integration of crop-livestock- 4.0 18−22

forest systems

Expansion of no-tillage systems 8.0 16−20

Biological nitrogen fixation 5.5 10

Colombia

In Colombia, currently 39.6 Mha of land are used for

livestock production (34.7% of the Colombian territory),

with an average of 0.6 animals/ha, while crops occupy

3.3 Mha (2.9%) (MADR 2011). The agricultural sector

in Colombia contributes 7% of the national GDP, with

livestock production contributing 1.6% (FEDEGAN

2012). Agriculture is responsible for 7.8% of national

exports, the livestock sector for 0.64% (MinCIT 2012).

The livestock sector is responsible for 17.6% of total



national GHG emissions, while crops account for 18.9%

(IDEAM 2010). The goal of the government is to reduce

the area under pastures by almost 10 Mha by 2032,

while increasing meat and milk production by 95.4%

and 72.6%, respectively (FEDEGAN 2011). Major

pathways identified for sustainable intensification of

livestock production include reversing pasture degrada-

tion, enhancing pasture management, and introducing

improved pasture and management systems such as

silvopastoral systems as key strategies.

Future perspectives and overall synthesis

The livestock sector is important at the global scale,

accounting for 40% of agricultural GDP, while at least

600 million of the world’s poor depend on income from

livestock production. However, livestock production is

also a large source of GHG, with extensive ruminant

systems producing more emissions, because they are less

efficient in feed conversion than intensive feedlot sys-

tems and monogastric systems. Thus, shifting meat con-

sumption from ruminant to non-ruminant systems could

have environmental benefits (Wirsenius et al. 2010). A

thorough analysis of the effects of livestock production,

however, will need to contrast emissions with compen-

sating factors such as C accumulation and reduction of

N2O emissions, especially in pastures. We argue that the

environmental cost of feed production from different

livestock systems would need to be analyzed through

inclusive life-cycle analyses (de Vries and de Boer 2010;

Pelletier et al. 2010; Thoma et al. 2013). For example,

assessments of grain-based feedlots must account for the

whole GHG cost of the feed supplied and the analysis

should also take into account that forages are often pro-

duced on land less suitable for crop production (Peters et

al. 2013).

As described in examples from Brazil and Colombia,

sustainable intensification of pasture-based livestock

production is being implemented as a major strategy to

mitigate GHG impacts and reduce GHG emissions per

unit livestock product (Bustamante et al. 2012). Thus,

sustainable intensification of forage-based systems is

critical to mitigate GHG emissions from livestock pro-

duction, while providing a number of co-benefits, in-

cluding increased productivity, reduced erosion, im-

proved soil quality and nutrient and water use efficiency.

The international community would need to pay much

greater attention to forage-based livestock systems, if a

reduction of GHG emissions in agriculture is the goal,

considering that more than 70% of agricultural land is

covered by these systems. In our view, ignoring the im-

portance of forage-based systems may leave 50−80% of

the mitigation potential of agriculture untapped (Peters

et al. 2013). This also needs to be seen in the context of

human nutrition. Reduced consumption of animal prod-

ucts may be desirable in rich countries, but from a nutri-

tional and socio-cultural standpoint, it is probably not an

option for countries where consumption is currently low

(Anderson and Gundel 2011).

Further research is required in both the biophysical

and socio-economic fields to:

Assess in detail the carbon accumulation potential of

forage-based systems. There is very limited information

on the long-term accumulation potential. Few studies

such as by INRA-CIRAD in French Guiana (Blanfort et

al. 2010) and Corpoica-CIAT in Colombia (G. Hyman

and A. Castro, unpublished results) suggest that C may

accumulate over a longer time span and at a greater soil

depth than previously expected. Guianese tropical grass-

lands are capable, under certain conditions, of compen-

sating partly for the loss of soil carbon caused by defor-

estation.

Quantify differences between well-managed and

degraded pastures in their capacity to accumulate C and

determine the role of legumes and trees in further im-

proving the potential for C accumulation.

Analyze trade-offs between C accumulation in soil

and N2O emission in grass alone, grass-legume and

grass-legume-tree associations, and determine the role of

soil fauna (e.g. earthworms) and flora in GHG balance

and improvement of soil quality. Use Brazil and Colom-

bia as examples to stimulate policy influencing mitiga-

tion of GHG emissions in other tropical countries.

Estimate the impacts of forage-based systems as

either trade-offs or win-win-win options for productivi-

ty, food security and environmental benefits at different

scales (from plot to farm to landscape to globe), and

compare them with alternative scenarios.

In this context, assess direct economic benefits for

farmers through product differentiation of environmen-

tally friendly products (e.g. consumers paying premium

prices for beef produced with low environmental im-

pact).

Develop payment-for-ecosystem-services (PES)

schemes to stimulate optimization of pasture manage-

ment.

Target forage interventions to different farming sys-

tems, from extensive to semi-intensive, identifying entry

points for each system.

In summary, there is a need for strategies that allow

for reducing GHG emissions through sustainable intensi-

fication of forage-based systems to enhance productivity



without compromising the ability of ecosystems to re-

generate and provide many ecosystem services. We sug-

gest that transformation of forage-based systems directed

at these goals through enhancing eco-efficiency is essen-

tial for balancing livelihood and environmental benefits.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the

CGIAR Research Programs Humidtropics, Livestock

and Fish, and Climate Change, Agriculture and Food

Security (CCAFS); the European Research Council

(2633522LUISE); the Japan International Research Cen-

ter for Agricultural Science (JIRCAS); the Ministerio de

Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural (MADR) and Colciencias

in Colombia; the Commonwealth Scientific and Indus-

trial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia; the In-

ternational Institute for Sustainability (IIS), Rio de Janei-

ro, Brazil; the Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche

Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) / Deutsche

Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ),

Germany; and Princeton University, USA.

References

Alexandratos N; Bruinsma J. 2012. World agriculture towards

2030/2050: The 2012 revision. ESA working paper No.

12-03. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the


(Retrieved 19 June 2013 from http://goo.gl/xn9ijA).

Amézquita MC; Murgueitio E; Ibrahim M; Ramírez B. 2010.

Carbon sequestration in pasture and silvopastoral systems

compared with native forests in ecosystems of tropical

America. In: Abberton M; Conant R; Batello C, eds.

Grassland carbon sequestration: Management, policy and

economics. Proceedings of the Workshop on the role of

grassland carbon sequestration in the mitigation of climate

change, Rome, April 2009. Integrated Crop Management

No. 11. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations), Rome, Italy. p. 153–161.

Anderson S; Gundel S. 2011. Foresight project on Global

Food and Farming Futures. Workshop report W5. Evi-

dence of livestock sector impacts on the climate and the

wider environment: A brief science review. The Govern-

ment Office for Science, London, UK.

Archimède H; Eugène M; Magdeleine CM; Boval M; Martin

C; Morgavi DP; Lecomte P; Doreau M. 2011. Comparison

of methane production between C3 and C4 grasses and

legumes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 166-

167:59–64.

Ayarza M; Barrios E; Rao IM; Amézquita E; Rondón M.

2007. Advances in improving agricultural profitability and

overcoming land degradation in savanna and hillside

agroecosystems of tropical America. In: Bationo A;

Waswa B; Kihara J; Kimetu J, eds. Advances in integrated

soil fertility research in sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges

and opportunities. Springer, The Netherlands. p. 209–229.

Benchaar C; Pomar C; Chiquette J. 2001. Evaluation of die-

tary strategies to reduce methane production in ruminants:

A modelling approach. Canadian Journal of Animal Sci-

ence 81:563–574.

Blanfort V; Fontaine S; Picon Cochard C; Klumpp K;

Huguenin J; Soussana JF. 2010. Evaluation of carbon se-

questration in tropical grassland, ecological processes and

farm practices in Amazonian cattle systems. Advances in

Animal Biosciences 1:493–494.

Brasil. 2011. Plano setorial de mitigação e de adaptação às

mudanças climáticas para a consolidação de uma economia

de baixa emissão de carbono na agricultura – Plano de

Agricultura de Baixa Emissão de Carbono (Plano ABC),

Brasília, DF, Brazil.

(Retrieved 19 June 2013 from http://goo.gl/MgoMsZ).

Bustamante MMC; Nobre CA; Smeraldi R; Aguiar APD;

Barioni LG; Ferreira LG; Longo K; May P; Pinto AS;

Ometto JPHB. 2012. Estimating greenhouse gas emissions

from cattle-raising in Brazil. Climatic Change 115:

559–577.

Calle Z; Murgueitio E; Chará J. 2012. Integrating forestry,

sustainable cattle-ranching and landscape restoration.

Unasylva 63:31–40.

Conant RT; Paustian K; Eliott ET. 2001. Grassland manage-

ment and conversion into grassland: Effects on soil carbon.

Ecological Applications 11:343–355.

da Silva JE; Resck DVS; Corazza EJ; Vivaldi L. 2004. Carbon

storage in clayey Oxisol cultivated pastures in the

“Cerrado” region, Brazil. Agriculture, Ecosystems and En-

vironment 103:357–363.

Delgado C; Rosegrant M; Steinfeld H; Ehui S; Courbois C.

1999. Livestock to 2020 – the next food revolution. Food,

Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 28.

IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute),

Washington, DC, USA; FAO (Food and Agriculture Or-

ganization of the United Nations), Rome, Italy; ILRI (In-

ternational Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

de Vries M; de Boer IJM. 2010. Comparing environmental

impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle as-

sessments. Livestock Science 128:1–11.

Douxchamps S; Rao IM; Peters M; van der Hoek R; Schmidt

A; Martens S; Polania J; Mena M; Binder C; Schöll R;

Mosimann A; Holmann F; Quintero M; Kreuzer M;

Frossard E; Oberson A. 2013. Farm-scale tradeoffs be-

tween legume use as forage versus green manure: The case

of Canavalia brasiliensis. Agroecology and Sustainable

Food Systems 38:25–45.

DOI:10.1080/21683565.2013.828667.

Erb KH; Gaube V; Krausmann F; Plutzar C; Bondeau A;

Haberl H. 2007. A comprehensive global 5 min resolution

land-use data set for the year 2000 consistent with national

census data. Journal of Land Use Science 2:191–224.

Erb KH; Mayer A; Kastner T; Sallet K-E; Haberl H. 2012.

The impact of industrial grain fed livestock production on

http://goo.gl/xn9ijA

http://goo.gl/MgoMsZ

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.828667



food security: An extended literature review. Alpen Adria

University Klagenfurt - Vienna - Graz, Austria.

(Retrieved 19 June 2013 from http://goo.gl/6smPcP).

FAO. 2009. The state of food and agriculture: Livestock in the

balance. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the


(Retrieved 19 June 2013 from http://goo.gl/RRpE5).

FAO. 2011a. World Livestock 2011. Livestock in food securi-

ty. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations), Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2011b. FAOSTAT statistical database.

http://faostat.fao.org

Fearnside, P. 2002. Can pasture intensification discourage

deforestation in the Amazon and Pantanal regions of Bra-

zil? In: Wood CH; Porro R, eds. Deforestation and land

use in the Amazon. University Press of Florida, Gaines-

ville, FL, USA. p. 283–364.

FEDEGAN (Federación Colombiana de Ganaderos). 2011.

Carta FEDEGAN No. 125.

(Retrieved 19 June 2013 from http://goo.gl/zZu25F).

FEDEGAN (Federación Colombiana de Ganaderos). 2012.

Plan Estratégico de la Ganadería Colombiana (PEGA)

2019: Cifras de referencia.

(Retrieved 19 June 2013 from http://goo.gl/vHx1wq).

Fisher MJ. 2009. Harry Stobbs Memorial Lecture – Carbon

sequestration: Science and practicality. Tropical Grass-

lands 43:239–248.

Fisher MJ; Braz SP; Dos Santos RSM; Urquiaga S; Alves

BJR; Boddey RM. 2007. Another dimension to grazing

systems: Soil carbon. Tropical Grasslands 41:65–83.

Foley JA; Ramankutty N; Brauman KA; Cassidy ES; Gerber

JS; Johnston M; Mueller ND; O’Connell C; Ray DK; West

PC; Balzer C; Bennett EM; Carpenter SR; Hill J;

Monfreda C; Polasky S; Rockström J; Sheehan J; Siebert

S; Tilman GD; Zaks DPM. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated

planet. Nature 478:337–342.

Garnett T. 2009. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions:

Impacts and options for policy makers. Environmental Sci-

ence and Policy 12:491–503.

Garnett T. 2011. Where are the best opportunities for reducing

greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the

food chain)? Food Policy 36:S23–S32.

Guo LB; Gifford RM. 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use

change: A meta analysis. Global Change Biology 8:

345–360.

Haan C de; Gerber P; Opio C. 2010. Structural change in the

livestock sector. In: Steinfeld H; Mooney HA; Schneider

F; Neville L, eds. Livestock in a changing landscape:

Drivers, consequences and responses. Vol 1. Island Press,

Washington, DC, USA. p. 35–50.

Haberl H; Erb KH; Krausmann F; Gaube V; Bondeau A;

Plutzar C; Gingrich S; Lucht W; Fischer-Kowalski M.

2007. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation

of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

United States of America 104:12942–12947.

Hamilton K; Sjardin M; Shapiro A; Marcello T. 2009. Fortify-

ing the foundation: State of the voluntary carbon markets

2009. New Carbon Finance, New York, USA; Ecosystem

Marketplace, Washington DC, USA.

Havlik P; Valin H; Mosnier A; Obersteiner M; Baker JS;

Herrero M; Rufino MC; Schmid E. 2013. Crop productivi-

ty and the global livestock sector: Implications for land use

change and greenhouse gas emissions. American Journal

of Agricultural Economics 95:442–448.

Henry B; Eckard R. 2009. Greenhouse gas emissions in live-

stock production systems. Tropical Grasslands 43:

232–238.



Montgomery H; Soussana J-F; Steinfeld H; McAllister TA.

2011. Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: The im-

portance of getting the numbers right. Animal Feed Sci-

ence and Technology 166-167:779–782.


Kruska R; Dixon J; Bossio D; van de Steeg J; Freeman

HA; Li X; Parthasarathy Rao P. 2012. Drivers of change in

crop-livestock systems and their potential impacts on agro-

ecosystems services and human wellbeing to 2030: A

study commissioned by the CGIAR Systemwide Livestock

Programme. ILRI Project Report. ILRI (International Live-

stock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

(Retrieved 19 June 2013 from http://goo.gl/KbZxDa).

Herrero M; Havlik P; Valin H; Notenbaert A; Rufino M;

Thornton PK; Blummel M; Weiss F; Obersteiner M.

2013a. Global livestock systems: Biomass use, production,

feed efficiencies and greenhouse gas emissions. Proceed-

ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America. (In review).

Herrero M; Conant R; Havlik P; Hristov A; Smith P; Gerber

P; Gill M; Butterbach-Bahl K; Henderson B; Thornton PK.

2013b. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the live-

stock sector. Nature Climate Change. (Submitted).

IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). 2011.

Pesquisa Pecuária Municipal 2010.

(Retrieved 19 June 2013 from http://goo.gl/YTKL95).

Ibrahim M; Chacón M; Cuartas C; Naranjo J; Ponce G;

Vega P; Casasola F; Rojas J. 2007. Almacenamiento de

carbono en el suelo y la biomasa arbórea en sistemas de

usos de la tierra en paisajes ganaderos de Colombia, Costa

Rica y Nicaragua. Agroforestería en las Américas 45:

27–36.

Ibrahim M; Guerra L; Casasola F; Neely C. 2010. Importance

of silvopastoral systems for mitigation of climate change

and harnessing of environmental benefits. In: Abberton M;

Conant R; Batello C, eds. Grassland carbon sequestration:

Management, policy and economics. Proceedings of the

Workshop on the role of grassland carbon sequestration in

the mitigation of climate change, Rome, April 2009. Inte-

grated Crop Management No. 11. FAO (Food and Agricul-

ture Organization of the United Nations), Rome, Italy. p.

189–196.

http://goo.gl/6smPcP

http://goo.gl/RRpE5

http://faostat.fao.org/

http://goo.gl/zZu25F

http://goo.gl/vHx1wq

http://goo.gl/KbZxDa

http://goo.gl/YTKL95



IDEAM (Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios

Ambientales de Colombia). 2010. Segunda Comunicación

Nacional ante la Convención Marco de las Naciones Uni-

das sobre Cambio Climático.

(Retrieved 19 June2013 from http://goo.gl/2da86t).

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007.

Climate change 2007: IPCC fourth assessment report.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kaimowitz D; Angelsen A. 2008. Will livestock intensi-

fication help save Latin America’s forests? Journal of Sus-

tainable Forestry 27:6–24.

Kastner T; Rivas MJI; Koch W; Nonhebel S. 2012. Global

changes in diets and the consequences for land require-

ments for food. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America 109:6868–6872.

Krausmann F; Erb KH; Gingrich S; Lauk C; Haberl H. 2008.

Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the

year 2000: A comprehensive assessment of supply, con-

sumption and constraints. Ecological Economics 65:

471–487.

Kumar BM; George SJ; Jamaludheen V; Suresh TK. 1998.

Comparison of biomass production, tree allometry and nu-

trient use efficiency of multipurpose trees grown in wood-

lot and silvopastoral experiments in Kerala, India. Forest

Ecology and Management 112:145–163.

Lal R. 2010. Managing soils and ecosystems for mitigating

anthropogenic carbon emissions and advancing global food

security. BioScience 60:708–721.

Lambin EF; Meyfroidt P. 2011. Global land use change, eco-

nomic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Pro-

ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unit-

ed States of America 108:3465-3472.

MADR (Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural). 2011.

Anuario estadístico del sector agropecuario y pesquero

2010. MADR, Bogotá, Colombia.

MinCIT (Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo). 2012.

Informe de Exportaciones: Exportaciones colombianas

enero-diciembre 2012. Oficina de Estudios Económicos,

MinCIT, Bogotá, Colombia.

(Retrieved 19 June 2013 from http://goo.gl/tPF017).

Monfreda C; Ramankutty N; Foley JA. 2008. Farming the

planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields,

physiological types, and net primary production in the year

2000. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22:1–19.

Mosier A; Wassmann R; Verchot L; King J; Palm C. 2004.

Methane and nitrogen oxide fluxes in tropical agricultural

soils: Sources, sinks and mechanisms. Environment, De-

velopment and Sustainability 6:11–49.

Murgueitio E; Calle Z; Uribe F; Calle A; Solorio B. 2011.

Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of

tropical cattle ranching lands. Forest Ecology and Man-

agement 261:1654–1663.

Nair PKR; Gordon AM; Mosquera-Losada MR. 2008. Agro-

forestry. In: Jorgensen SE; Fath BD, eds. Ecological engi-

neering. Encyclopedia of Ecology, Vol. 1. Elsevier,

Oxford, UK. p. 101–110.

Nair PKR; Kumar BM; Nair VD. 2009. Agroforestry as a

strategy for carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutri-

tion and Soil Science 172:10–23.

Nair PKR; Nair VD; Kumar BM; Showalter J. 2010. Carbon

sequestration in agroforestry systems. Advances in Agron-

omy 108:237–307.

Olander L; Wollenberg E; Tubiello F; Herold M. 2013. Ad-

vancing agricultural greenhouse gas quantification. Envi-

ronmental Research Letters 8:011002.

DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011002.

Pelletier N; Pirog R; Rasmussen R. 2010. Comparative life

cycle environmental impacts of three beef production

strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agricul-

tural Systems 103:380–389.

Peters M; Rao I; Fisher M; Subbarao G; Martens S; Herrero

M; van der Hoek R; Schultze-Kraft R; Miles J; Castro A;

Graefe S; Tiemann T; Ayarza M; Hyman G. 2013. Tropi-

cal forage-based systems to mitigate greenhouse gas emis-

sions. In: Hershey CH; Neate P, eds. Eco-Efficiency: From

vision to reality. CIAT (Centro Internacional de Agricul-

tura Tropical), Cali, Colombia. p. 171–190.

Powers JS; Corre MD; Twine TE; Veldkamp E. 2011. Geo-

graphic bias of field observations of soil carbon stocks

with tropical land-use changes precludes spatial extrapola-

tion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

the United States of America 108:6318–6322.

Sáenz JC; Villatoro F; Ibrahim M; Fajardo D; Pérez M. 2007.

Relación entre las comunidades de aves y la vegetación en

agropaisajes dominados por la ganadería en Costa Rica,

Nicaragua y Colombia. Agroforestería en las Américas

45:37–48.

Shelton M; Dalzell S. 2007. Production, economic and envi-

ronmental benefits of leucaena pastures. Tropical Grass-

lands 41:174–190.

Smith P; Martino D; Cai Z; Gwary D; Janzen H; Kumar P;

McCarl B; Ogle S; O’Mara F; Rice C; Scholes B; Siroten-

ko O; Howden M; McAllister T; Pan G; Romanekov V;

Schneider U; Towprayon S; Wattenbach M; Smith J. 2008.

Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society B 363:789–813.

Smith P; Gregory PJ; van Vuuren D; Obersteiner M; Havlík P;

Rounsevell M; Woods J; Stehfest E; Bellarby J. 2010.

Competition for land. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society B 365:2941–2957.

Stehfest E; Bouwman L. 2006. N2O and NO emission from

agricultural fields and soils under natural vegetation:

Summarizing available measurement data and modeling of

global annual emissions. Nutrient Cycling in Agro-

ecosystems 74:207–228.


Haan C. 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental

issues and options. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organiza-

tion of the United Nations), Rome, Italy.

(Retrieved 19 June 2013 from http://goo.gl/MQIXE).

Strassburg B; Micol L; Ramos F; da Motta RS; Latawiec A;

Lisauskas F. 2012. Increasing agricultural outputs while

http://goo.gl/2da86t

http://goo.gl/tPF017

http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011002

http://goo.gl/MQIXE



avoiding deforestation – a case study for Mato Grosso,

Brazil. IIS (International Institute for Sustainability), Rio

de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

(Retrieved 19 June 2013 from http://goo.gl/CMLt24).

Subbarao GV; Ito O; Sahrawat KL; Berry WL; Nakahara K;

Ishikawa T; Watanabe T; Suenaga K; Rondón M; Rao IM.

2006. Scope and strategies for regulation of nitrification in

agricultural systems – challenges and opportunities. Criti-

cal Reviews in Plant Sciences 25:303–335.

Subbarao GV; Rondón M; Ito O; Ishikawa T; Rao IM; Naka-

hara K; Lascano C; Berry WL. 2007. Biological nitrifica-

tion inhibition (BNI) – is it a widespread phenomenon?

Plant and Soil 294:5–18.

Subbarao GV; Nakahara K; Hurtado MP; Ono H; Moreta DE;

Salcedo AF; Yoshihashi AT; Ishikawa T; Ishitani M;

Ohnishi-Kameyama M; Yoshida M; Rondón M; Rao IM;

Lascano CE; Berry WL; Ito O. 2009. Evidence for biologi-

cal nitrification inhibition in Brachiaria pastures. Proceed-


States of America 106:17302–17307.

Subbarao GV; Sahrawat KL; Nakahara K; Ishikawa T; Kudo

N; Kishii M; Rao IM; Hash CT; George TS; Srinivasa Rao

P; Nardi P; Bonnett D; Berry W; Suenaga K; Lata JC.

2012. Biological nitrification inhibition (BNI) – A novel

strategy to regulate nitrification in agricultural systems.

Advances in Agronomy 114:249–302.

Szott L; Ibrahim M; Beer J. 2000. The hamburger connection

hangover: Cattle, pasture land degradation and alternative

land use in Central America. CATIE (Tropical Agricultural

Research and Higher Education Center), Turrialba, Costa

Rica.

The World Bank. 2010. World Development Report 2010:

Development and climate change. The World Bank, Wash-

ington, DC, USA.

Thoma G; Popp J; Nutter D; Shonnard D; Ulrich R; Matlock

M; Kim DS; Neiderman Z; Kemper N; East C; Adom F.

2013. Greenhouse gas emissions from milk production and

consumption in the United States: A cradle-to-grave life

cycle assessment circa 2008. International Dairy Journal

31(Supplement 1):S3–S14.

Thornton PK; Kruska RL; Henninger N; Kristjanson PM; Reid

RS; Atieno F; Odero AN; Ndegwa T. 2002. Mapping pov-

erty and livestock in the developing world. ILRI (Inter-

national Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

Thornton P; Herrero M. 2010. Potential for reduced methane

and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock and pasture

management in the tropics. Proceedings of the National


107:19667–19672.

Tiemann TT; Lascano CE; Wettstein H-R; Mayer AC;

Kreuzer M; Hess HD. 2008. Effect of the tropical tannin-

rich shrub legumes Calliandra calothyrsus and Flemingia

macrophylla on methane emission and nitrogen and energy

balance in growing lambs. Animal 2:790–799.

Vågen T-G; Winowiecki LA. 2013. Mapping of soil organic

carbon stocks for spatially explicit assessments of climate

change mitigation potential. Environmental Research Let-

ters 8:015011. DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015011.

Waghorn GC; Clark DA. 2004. Feeding value of pastures for

ruminants. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 52:320–331.

White D; Holmann F; Fujisaka S; Reategui K; Lascano C.

2001. Will intensifying pasture management in Latin

America protect forests – or is it the other way round? In:

Angelsen A; Kaimowitz D, eds. Agricultural technologies

and tropical deforestation. CABI Publishing, Wallingford,

UK and New York, USA, in association with CIFOR

(Center for International Forestry Research), Bogor, Indo-

nesia. p. 91–11.

Wirsenius S; Azar C; Berndes G. 2010. How much land is

needed for global food production under scenarios of die-

tary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030?

Agricultural Systems 103:621–638.

Woodward SL; Waghorn GC; Laboyrie P. 2004. Condensed

tannins in birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) reduced

methane emissions from dairy cows. Proceedings of the

New Zealand Society of Animal Production 64:160–164.

© 2013




http://goo.gl/CMLt24

http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015011





Nitrogen management in grasslands and forage-based production

systems – Role of biological nitrification inhibition (BNI)

G.V. SUBBARAO1, I.M. RAO

2, K. NAKAHARA

1, Y. ANDO

1, K.L. SAHRAWAT

3, T. TESFAMARIAM

1,

J.C. LATA4, S. BOUDSOCQ

5, J.W. MILES

2, M. ISHITANI

2 AND M. PETERS

2

1Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS), Ohwashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.

www.jircas.affrc.go.jp 2Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia. www.ciat.cgiar.org

3International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.

www.icrisat.org 4UPMC-Bioemco, École Normale Supérieure, Paris, France. www.biologie.ens.fr/bioemco

5INRA, UMR Eco&Soils, Montpellier SupAgro-CIRAD-INRA-IRD, Montpellier, France.

www5.montpellier.inra.fr/ecosols_eng

Keywords: Brachiaria grasses, grassland productivity, global warming, nitrogen losses, nitrous oxide emissions,

nitrogen-use efficiency.

Abstract

Nitrogen (N), the most critical and essential nutrient for plant growth, largely determines the productivity in both ex-

tensive and intensive grassland systems. Nitrification and denitrification processes in the soil are the primary drivers of

generating reactive N (NO3-, N2O and NO), largely responsible for N loss and degradation of grasslands. Suppressing

nitrification can thus facilitate retention of soil N to sustain long-term productivity of grasslands and forage-based pro-

duction systems. Certain plants can suppress soil nitrification by releasing inhibitors from roots, a phenomenon termed

‘biological nitrification inhibition’ (BNI). Recent methodological developments [e.g. bioluminescence assay to detect

biological nitrification inhibitors (BNIs) from plant-root systems] led to significant advances in our ability to quantify

and characterize BNI function in pasture grasses. Among grass pastures, BNI capacity is strongest in low-N environ-

ment grasses such as Brachiaria humidicola and weakest in high-N environment grasses such as Italian ryegrass

(Lolium perenne) and B. brizantha. The chemical identity of some of the BNIs produced in plant tissues and released

from roots has now been established and their mode of inhibitory action determined on nitrifying Nitrosomonas bacte-

ria. Synthesis and release of BNIs is a highly regulated and localized process, triggered by the presence of NH4+ in the

rhizosphere, which facilitates release of BNIs close to soil-nitrifier sites. Substantial genotypic variation is found for

BNI capacity in B. humidicola, which opens the way for its genetic manipulation. Field studies suggest that Brachiaria

grasses suppress nitrification and N2O emissions from soil. The potential for exploiting BNI function (from a genetic

improvement and a system perspective) to develop production systems, that are low-nitrifying, low N2O-emitting, eco-

nomically efficient and ecologically sustainable, is discussed.

Resumen

El nitrógeno (N), el nutriente más crítico y esencial para el crecimiento de las plantas, es determinante para la produc-

tividad de las pasturas, tanto de tipo extensivo como intensivo. Los procesos de nitrificación y denitrificación en el

suelo son los principales responsables de la generación de formas de N reactivo (NO3-, N2O y NO) y, como consecuen-

cia, de la pérdida de N y la degradación de las pasturas. Por tanto, la supresión de la nitrificación puede facilitar la re-

tención de N en el suelo necesario para mantener, a largo plazo, la productividad de pastizales y sistemas de produc-

ción basados en forrajes. Algunas plantas pueden suprimir la nitrificación en el suelo mediante la liberación de sustan-

cias inhibidoras desde sus raíces, un fenómeno llamado ‘inhibición biológica de la nitrificación’ (BNI, por su sigla en

___________

Correspondence: G.V. Subbarao, Japan International Research Center

for Agricultural Sciences, 1-1 Ohwashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8686,

Japan.

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.jircas.affrc.go.jp/


http://www.icrisat.org/

http://www.biologie.ens.fr/bioemco


169 G.V. Subbarao et al.


inglés). Metodologías recientemente desarrolladas, por ej., pruebas de bioluminiscencia para detectar inhibidores bio-

lógicos de la nitrificación (BNIs) en el sistema radicular de plantas, han permitido mejorar las posibilidades de cuanti-

ficar y caracterizar la función de BNI en gramíneas forrajeras. Dentro de las gramíneas, la más alta capacidad de BNI

se ha encontrado en especies de ambientes bajos en N como Brachiaria humidicola, y la más baja en especies de am-

bientes altos en N como Lolium perenne y B. brizantha. Actualmente se conoce la identidad química de algunos BNIs

producidos en tejidos de plantas y liberados en las raíces, igualmente su modo de acción inhibitoria sobre la nitrifica-

ción de las bacterias Nitrosomonas. La síntesis y liberación de los BNIs es un proceso altamente regulado y localizado,

estimulado por la presencia de NH4 en la rizósfera, lo que facilita la liberación de los BNIs cerca de los sitios de nitrifi-

cación en el suelo. En B. humidicola se ha encontrado una amplia variación genotípica en la capacidad de BNI, lo que

abre un camino para su manipulación genética. Estudios a nivel de campo sugieren que las gramíneas del género Bra-

chiaria reducen la nitrificación y la emisión de N2O del suelo. Se discute el potencial de explotar la función de BNI,

desde la perspectiva de mejoramiento genético y de sistema, para desarrollar sistemas de producción con baja nitrifica-

ción y baja emisión de N2O, y que sean económicamente eficientes y ecológicamente sostenibles.

Introduction

Grass pastures are the largest land user, occupying

3.2 billion ha of the 4.9 billion ha of available agricul-

tural land worldwide (Steinfeld et al. 2006). In addition,

a significant portion of the cultivated land (0.5 billion

ha) is used for growing forage grasses and feed-grain

crops (e.g. sorghum, barley, maize and soybean) to sup-

port intensive livestock production (Steinfeld and

Wassenaar 2007; Herrero et al. 2010, 2011). Mineraliza-

tion of soil organic matter (SOM) is the major N source

in extensive grassland systems. For intensive grass pas-

tures, fertilizer N inputs can reach from 200 to 600 kg

N/ha/yr, with only 30% recovered by plant protein and

entering into the animal system, while the remaining

70% is lost to the environment in reactive N forms (i.e.

NO3-, N2O, NO) (Galloway et al. 2009). Nitrogen-use

efficiency (NUE) in grassland systems (meat or milk

protein produced/kg plant protein N intake) ranges from

5 to 10%, depending on whether milk or meat is the out-

put (van der Hoek 1998). Grazing animals typically re-

tain about 5% of the N intake (from the grass consumed)

in their bodies and excrete the rest through urine (about

90% of the total N intake) and dung, which becomes an

N source for the grass pasture (Worthington and Danks

1992). Much of this N, however, is lost through NO3-

leaching and gaseous N emissions (N2O, NO and N2),

causing ecological damage and economic loss (Tilman et

al. 2002; Steinfeld and Wassenaar 2007; Herrero et al.

2011; Subbarao et al. 2013b).

N losses from agricultural systems impact the global

environment and contribute significantly to global

warming

Due to the development of high-nitrifying soil environ-

ments (where NO3- accounts for >95% of the plant N

uptake), intensive pasture and feed-grain production sys-

tems have become extremely “leaky” and inherently in-

efficient (Subbarao et al. 2012); nearly 70% of the

150 Mt N fertilizer applied annually to global agricultur-

al systems is lost through NO3- leaching and N2O and

NO emissions; annual economic loss from the lost N is

estimated to be US$ 90 billion (Subbarao et al. 2013b).

Fertilizer N use is projected to reach 300 Mt/yr by 2050

(Tilman et al. 2001) and N lost through NO3- leaching

from agricultural systems could reach close to 61.5 Mt

N/yr (Schlesinger 2009). Currently 17 Mt N is emitted as

N2O and this is expected to quadruple by 2100, due

largely to an increase in the use of N fertilizers (Gallo-

way et al. 2008).

Nitrification opens several pathways for N loss and

weakens the soil N retention capacity in grassland sys-

tems

Nitrification, the biological oxidation of NH4

+ to NO3

-,

opens several pathways for production of N2O and NO,

generated through nitrifier-denitrification or hetero-

trophic denitrification processes (Davidson and Verchot

2000; Zhu et al. 2013). Nitrification and denitrification

are the major drivers for global emissions of N2O, the

most aggressive and powerful greenhouse gas, directly

affected by human activity, with a global warming po-

tential 300 times greater than that of CO2 (Hahn and

Crutzen 1982). As a cation, NH4+ is held by the nega-

tively charged surfaces of clay minerals and SOM, that

reduce the NH4+ loss by leaching. In contrast, the nega-

tively charged NO3- does not readily bond to the soil,

and is sufficiently labile to be leached out of the root

zone. Nitrogen enters grass pastures primarily as N ferti-

lizers (in intensive systems) or is derived from SOM-

mineralization (in extensive systems) or hydrolysis of

Role of BNI 170


urea N from urine excreted from grazing animals, where

NH4+ is produced either through SOM-mineralization-

ammonification or urea hydrolysis, as the first product of

inorganic N. Heterotrophic soil microorganisms convert

NH4+ into microbial N, i.e. immobilization, and pasture

roots and nitrifying bacteria compete for this NH4+ as an

N source (Figure 1). Nitrogen flow into microbial im-

mobilization or plant uptake is desirable. However, N

flows into nitrification pathways generate reactive N

forms (NO3-, N2O and NO), that are not retained by the

soil, and are lost to the environment, leading to the

degradation of grassland systems.

Restricting the N flow to the nitrification pathway by

inhibiting soil nitrifier activity facilitates NH4+ uptake by

plants; this also allows N flow into the microbial pool

(Hodge et al. 2000). The immobilization and mineraliza-

tion loop of the N cycle dominates to keep soil N cycling

within the system, and creates a slow-release N pool to

sustain grassland productivity in such systems (Figure

1). Most plants have the ability to use NH4+ or NO3

- as

their N source (Haynes and Goh 1978; Boudsocq et al.

2012). Reducing nitrification rates in agricultural sys-

tems does not alter the intrinsic ability of plants to ab-

sorb N, but does increase retention time of N in the root

zone as NH4+, which is less mobile and less energetically

costly for uptake and assimilation than NO3-, providing

additional time for plants to absorb N. Many of the ad-

vantages, associated with inhibiting nitrification to im-

prove productivity and NUE of intensive grassland sys-

tems and feed-grain production systems, have been

demonstrated using chemical nitrification inhibitors

(Subbarao et al. 2006a; Dennis et al. 2012).

Biological nitrification inhibition (BNI)

The BNI concept

The ability to produce and release nitrification inhibitors

from plant roots to suppress soil nitrifier activity is

termed ‘biological nitrification inhibition’ (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the biological nitrification inhibition (BNI) interfaces with the N cycle. The BNI exuded by

roots inhibits nitrification that converts NH4+

to NO2-. In ecosystems with large amounts of BNI (e.g. brachialactone), such as in

Brachiaria grasses, the flow of N from NH4+ to NO3

-, via NO2

-, is restricted, and it is NH4

+ and microbial N rather than NO3

- that

accumulates in the soil. In systems with little or no BNI, such as modern agricultural systems, nitrification occurs rapidly, leaving

little time for plant roots to absorb NO3-; thus NO3

- is lost from the system through denitrification and leaching; (adapted from

Subbarao et al. 2012).



Nitrification largely determines the N-cycling effi-

ciency (i.e. proportion of N that stays in the ecosystem

during a complete N-cycling loop); the BNI function has

the potential to improve agronomic NUE (Subbarao et

al. 2012; 2013b). Recent modeling studies coupled with

in-situ measures suggest that tropical grasses, which in-

hibit nitrification, exhibit a 2-fold greater productivity

than those that lack such ability (Lata 1999; Boudsocq et

al. 2012).

BNI characterization in pasture grasses

Recent methodological advances have facilitated the de-

tection and quantification of nitrification inhibitors from

intact plant roots using a recombinant Nitrosomonas

construct (Subbarao et al. 2006b). Nitrification inhibitors

released from roots measured as ‘BNI activity’, are ex-

pressed in ATU (allylthiourea unit) and this ability is

termed BNI capacity (Subbarao et al. 2007b). Root sys-

tems of tropical pasture grasses showed a wide range in

BNI capacity. Brachiaria humidicola, a grass adapted to

low-N production environments of South American sa-

vannas, showed the greatest BNI capacity (range from

15 to 50 ATU/g root dry wt/d) (Subbarao et al. 2007b).

By contrast, Lolium perenne, B. brizantha and Panicum

maximum, that are adapted to high-N environments,

showed the least BNI capacity (2−5 ATU/g root dry

wt/d) (Figure 2). Sorghum is the only field crop that

showed a significant BNI capacity (5−10 ATU/g root

dry wt/d) among the cereal and legume crops evaluated

(Subbarao et al. 2007b; 2013b).

Figure 2. BNI activity released from intact roots of various

pasture grasses grown in sand-vermiculite (3:1 v/v) culture for

60 days; Bh – Brachiaria humidicola, Mm – Melinis

minutiflora, Pm – Panicum maximum, Lp – Lolium perenne,

Ag – Andropogon gayanus, Bb – B. brizantha. Vertical bar

represents LSD (0.05); (based on Subbarao et al. 2007b).

The BNI capacity of root systems arises from their

ability to release 2 categories of BNIs: (a) hydrophobic

BNIs; and (b) hydrophilic BNIs. These BNI fractions

differ in their mobility in the soil and their solubility in

water; the hydrophobic BNIs may remain close to the

root as they could be strongly adsorbed on the soil parti-

cles, increasing their persistence. The mobility of the

hydrophobic BNIs is via diffusion across a concentration

gradient; thus this form is likely to be confined to the

rhizosphere (Raynaud 2010; Subbarao et al. 2013a). In

contrast, the hydrophilic BNIs may move further from

the point of release due to their solubility in water, and

this may improve their capacity to control nitrification

beyond the rhizosphere (Subbarao et al. 2013a). The

relative contributions of hydrophobic BNIs and hydro-

philic BNIs to the BNI capacity may differ among plant

species. For Brachiaria grasses, both fractions make

equal contributions to the BNI capacity; for sorghum,

the hydrophobic BNIs play a dominant role in determin-

ing the BNI capacity, whereas in wheat, hydrophilic

BNIs determine the root system’s inhibitory capacity

(G.V. Subbarao and T. Tsehaye, unpublished data).

For Brachiaria spp., the amount of inhibitors released

from root systems could be substantial. Based on the

BNI activity release rates observed (17−50 ATU/g root

dry wt/d) and assuming the average live root biomass

from a long-term grass pasture at 1.5 t/ha (Rao 1998), it

was estimated that BNI activity of 2.6 x 106−7.5 x 10

6

ATU/ha/d is potentially released (Subbarao et al. 2009a).

This amounts to an inhibitory potential equivalent to that

achieved by the application of 6.2−18.0 kg of nitra-

pyrin/ha/yr, which is large enough to have a significant

influence on the functioning of the nitrifier population

and nitrification rates in the soil. Field studies indicate a

90% decline in soil ammonium oxidation rates due to

extremely small populations of nitrifiers (ammonia-

oxidizing bacteria, AOB, and archaea, AOA, determined

as amoA genes) within 3 years of establishment of

B. humidicola (Figure 3). Nitrous oxide emissions were

suppressed by >90% in field plots of B. humidicola

compared with soybean, which lacks BNI capacity in its

root systems (Subbarao et al. 2009a).

Chemical identities of BNIs and their mode of inhibitory

action

The major nitrification inhibitor released from the roots

of B. humidicola is a cyclic diterpene, named ‘brachia-

lactone’ (Subbarao et al. 2009a). This compound has a

dicyclopenta (a,d) cyclooctane skeleton (5-8-5 ring sys-

tem) with a -lactone ring bridging one of the 5-

membered rings and the 8-membered ring (Figure 4)

BN

I-ac

tiv

ity

rel

ease

d f

rom

ro

ots

(AT

U/g

ro

ot

dry

wt/

d)

Bh Mm Pm Lp Ag Bb

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Pasture grasses

Role of BNI 172


Figure 3. Soil ammonium oxidation rates in field plots plant-

ed to tropical pasture grasses (differing in BNI capacity) and

soybean (lacking BNI capacity in roots); grasses: covering 3

years from establishment (September 2004−November 2007),

soybean: 6 seasons of cultivation over 3 years. Con – control

plots (plant free); Soy – soybean; Pm – Panicum maximum;

BMul – Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato (apomictic hybrid that

contains germplasm from B. ruziziensis, B. decumbens and B.

brizantha, but NOT from B. humidicola); Bh-679 – B.

humidicola CIAT 679 (standard cultivar Tully); Bh-16888 –

B. humidicola accession CIAT 16888. Values are means ± s.e.

of 3 replications; (adapted from Subbarao et al. 2009a).

Figure 4. Chemical structure of brachialactone, the major

nitrification inhibitor isolated from root exudates of

Brachiaria humidicola; (from Subbarao et al. 2009a).

(Subbarao et al. 2009a). Brachialactone, with an IC80 of

10.6 m, is considered one of the most potent nitrifica-

tion inhibitors as compared with nitrapyrin or dicyandi-

amide (DCD), 2 of the synthetic nitrification inhibitors

most commonly used in production agriculture (IC80,

concentration for 80% inhibition in the bioassay, of 5.8

m for nitrapyrin and 2200 m for DCD). Brachia-

lactone inhibits Nitrosomonas sp. by blocking both am-

monia monooxygenase (AMO) and hydroxylamine

oxidoreductase (HAO) enzymatic functions, but appears

to have a relatively stronger effect on the AMO than on

the HAO enzymatic pathway. About 60−90% of the in-

hibitory activity released from the roots of B. humidicola

is due to brachialactone. Release of brachialactone is a

regulated plant function, triggered and sustained by the

availability of NH4+ in the root environment (Subbarao

et al. 2007a; 2009a). Brachialactone release is restricted

to those roots that are directly exposed to NH4+, and not

the entire root system, suggesting a localized release re-

sponse (Subbarao et al. 2009a).

Genetic improvement of BNI capacity of pasture grasses

Significant genetic variability (ranging from 7.1 to 46.3

ATU/g root dry wt/d) exists for BNI capacity in B.

humidicola, indicating a significant potential for genetic

manipulation of BNI capacity by conventional plant

breeding (Subbarao et al. 2007b; 2009b). Recent find-

ings suggest substantial genetic variability for

brachialactone release among B. humidicola germplasm

accessions, nearly 10-fold differences, suggesting the

potential for breeding Brachiaria genotypes with high

brachialactone capacity. Efforts are underway to develop

molecular markers for brachialactone release capacity in

Brachiaria spp.

Perspectives

Sustainable intensification of grasslands and feed-crop

production systems is needed to meet the global de-

mands for meat and milk, particularly in developing

countries. As the demand for meat and milk is expected

to double by 2050 (Herrero et al. 2009), there will be

further efforts to intensify grasslands and feed-crop-

based systems. Most increases in productivity are, how-

ever, achieved through massive inputs of industrially

produced N fertilizer. Nearly 70% of the 150 Mt N ap-

plied to global agricultural systems is lost, largely due to

the high nitrifying nature of soil environments (Tilman

et al. 2001; Subbarao et al. 2013b). As nitrification and

denitrification are the primary biological drivers of NO3-,

N2O and NO production (i.e. reactive N forms largely

responsible for environmental pollution), suppressing

nitrification is critical to reduce N losses and to retain

soil N for longer periods in the grassland systems. The

BNI function in forage grasses and feed-crops such as

sorghum can be exploited using genetic and crop- and/or

production system-based management to design low-

nitrifying agronomic environments to improve NUE. In

addition, the high BNI capacity in Brachiaria spp. can

be utilized for the benefit of feed-crop systems such as

maize, that receive most of the N fertilization but do not

have inherent BNI capacity in their root systems. This

Field plots

Con Soy Pm BMul Bh-679 Bh-16888

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

Am

mo

niu

m o

xid

atio

n r

ate

in s

oil

(mg

NO

2- -

N/k

g so

il/d

)



could be achieved by integrating Brachiaria pastures

with high BNI capacity and maize production using

agro-pastoral systems (Subbarao et al. 2013b). In grazed

grassland systems, most of the plant protein N is excret-

ed by livestock (through urine) and thus returned to the

soil. Grassland systems that retain N excreted by live-

stock are likely to maintain/sustain productivity over

time. The BNI function could be most effective in con-

trolling nitrification in grassland systems if genetically

manipulated, either by conventional plant breeding or by

genetic engineering. Most grasses develop extensive root

systems and are perennial (Rao et al. 2011); if this is

combined with high BNI capacity, these grassland sys-

tems can potentially suppress soil nitrifier activity to

retain and use N more efficiently than at present. As

grazing animals usually deposit urine and dung in a ran-

dom, patchy manner, soil N is redistributed. The patchy

distribution makes it difficult to control nitrification us-

ing synthetic nitrification inhibitors. The BNI function in

forage grasses could be more effective in controlling

nitrification to sustain system productivity and to protect

these systems from degradation.

Acknowledgments

The research on BNI at CIAT is supported by BMZ-

GIZ, Germany; MADR, Colombia; MOFA, Japan; and

Sida, Sweden.

References

Boudsocq S; Nibovet A; Lata JC; Raynaud X; Loeuille N;

Mathieu J; Blouin M; Abbadie L; Barot S. 2012. Plant

preference for ammonium versus nitrate: A neglected de-

terminant of ecosystem functioning? American Naturalist

180:60−69.

Davidson EA; Verchot LV. 2000. Testing the hole-in-the-pipe

model of nitric and nitrous oxide emissions from soils us-

ing the TRAGNET database. Global Biogeochemical

Cycles 14:1035−1043.

Dennis SJ; Cameron KC; Di HJ; Moir JL; Staples V; Sills P;

Richards KG. 2012. Reducing nitrate losses from grazed

grassland in Ireland using a nitrification inhibitor (DCD).

Biology and the Environment 112B:79−89.

Galloway JN; Townsend AR; Erisman JW; Bekunda M; Zai

Z; Freney JR; Martinelli LA; Seitzinger SP; Sutton MA.

2008. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: Recent trends,

questions and potential solutions. Science 320:889−892.

Galloway JN; Dentener F; Burke M; Dumont E; Bouwman

AF; Kohn RA; Mooney HA; Seitzinger S; Kroeze C. 2009.

The impact of animal production systems on the nitrogen

cycle. In: Steinfeld H; Mooney HA; Schneider F; Neville

LE, eds. Livestock in a changing landscape. Vol. 1. Island

Press, Washington, DC, USA. p. 83−95.

Hahn J; Crutzen PJ. 1982. The role of fixed nitrogen in atmos-

pheric photochemistry. Philosophical Transactions of the

Royal Society of London, Series B 296:521−541.

Haynes RJ; Goh KM. 1978. Ammonium and nitrate nutrition

of plants. Biological Reviews 53:465−510.

Herrero M; Thornton PK; Gerber P; Reid RS. 2009. Live-

stock, livelihoods and the environment: Understanding the

trade-offs. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainabil-

ity 1:111−120.

Herrero M; Thornton PK; Notenbaert AM; Wood S; Msangi

S; Freeman HA; Bossio D; Dixon J; Peters M; van de

Steeg J; Lynam J; Parthasarathy Rao P; Macmillan S;

Gerard B; McDermott J; Seré C; Rosegrant M. 2010.

Smart investments in sustainable food production: Revisit-

ing mixed crop-livestock systems. Science 327:822−825.



Montgomery H; Soussana JF; Steinfeld H; McAllister TA.

2011. Livestock and greenhouse gas emissions: The im-

portance of getting the numbers right. Animal Feed

Science and Technology 166:779−782.

Hodge A; Robinson D; Fitter AH. 2000. Are microorganisms

more effective than plants at competing for nitrogen?

Trends in Plant Science 5:304−308.

Lata JC. 1999. Interactions between microbial processes, nu-

trient cycle and grass cover functioning: Study of soil nitri-

fication under the Gramineae Hyparrhenia diplandra in a

wet tropical savanna of Ivory Coast. PhD Thesis. Universi-

ty of Paris VI, Paris, France.

Rao IM. 1998. Root distribution and production in native and

introduced pastures in the South American savannas. In: JE

Box Jr, ed. Root demographics and their efficiencies in

sustainable agriculture, grasslands, and forest ecosystems.

Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. p. 19−42.

Rao IM; Miles J; Wenzl P; Louw-Gaume A; Cardoso JA;

Ricaurte J; Polania J; Rincón J; Hoyos V; Frossard E;

Wagatsuma T; Horst W. 2011. Mechanisms of adaptation

of brachiaria grasses to abiotic stress factors in the tropics.

Plenary paper presented at the III International Symposium

on Forage Breeding, 7−11 November 2011. Embrapa (Em-

presa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária), Bonito, MS,

Brazil. p. 361−383.

Raynaud X. 2010. Soil properties are key determinants for the

development of exudate gradients in a rhizosphere simula-

tion model. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 42:210−219.

Schlesinger WH. 2009. On the fate of anthropogenic nitrogen.


United States of America 106:203−208.





http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM.

Steinfeld H; Wassenaar T. 2007. The role of livestock produc-

tion in carbon and nitrogen cycles. Annual Review of En-

vironmental Resources 32:271−294.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

Role of BNI 174


Subbarao GV; Ito O; Sahrawat KL; Berry WL; Nakahara K;

Ishikawa T; Watanabe T; Suenaga K; Rondon M; Rao IM.

2006a. Scope and strategies for regulation of nitrification

in agricultural systems – Challenges and opportunities.

Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 25:303−335.

Subbarao GV; Ishikawa T; Ito O; Nakahara K; Wang HY;

Berry WL. 2006b. A bioluminescence assay to detect nitri-

fication inhibitors released from plant roots: A case study

with Brachiaria humidicola. Plant and Soil 288:101−112.

Subbarao GV; Wang HY; Ito O; Nakahara K; Berry WL.

2007a. NH4+ triggers the synthesis and release of biological

nitrification inhibition compounds in Brachiaria humidi-

cola roots. Plant and Soil 290:245−257.

Subbarao GV; Rondon M; Ito O; Ishikawa T; Rao IM; Naka-

hara K; Lascano C; Berry WL. 2007b. Biological nitrifica-

tion inhibition (BNI) – Is it a widespread phenomenon?

Plant and Soil 294:5−18.

Subbarao GV; Nakahara K; Hurtado MP; Ono H; Moreta DE;

Salcedo AF; Yoshihashi AT; Ishikawa T; Ishitani M;

Ohnishi-Kameyama M; Yoshida M; Rondon M; Rao IM;

Lascano CE; Berry WL; Ito O. 2009a. Evidence for biolog-

ical nitrification inhibition in Brachiaria pastures. Proceed-


States of America 106:17302−17307.

Subbarao GV; Kishii M; Nakahara K; Ishikawa T; Ban T;

Tsujimoto H; George TS; Berry WL; Hash CT; Ito O.

2009b. Biological nitrification inhibition (BNI) – Is there

potential for genetic interventions in the Triticeae? Breed-

ing Science 59:529−545.

Subbarao GV; Sahrawat KL; Nakahara K; Ishikawa T; Kishii

M; Rao IM; Hash CT; George TS; Srinivasa Rao P; Nardi

P; Bonnett D; Berry W; Suenaga K; Lata JC. 2012. Biolog-

ical nitrification inhibition – A novel strategy to regulate

nitrification in agricultural systems. Advances in Agrono-

my 114:249−302.

Subbarao GV; Nakahara K; Ishikawa T; Ono H; Yoshida M;

Yoshihashi T; Zhu Y; Zakir HAKM; Deshpande SP; Hash

CT; Sahrawat KL. 2013a. Biological nitrification inhibition

(BNI) activity in sorghum and its characterization. Plant

and Soil 366:243−259.

Subbarao GV; Sahrawat KL; Nakahara K; Rao IM; Ishitani M;

Hash CT; Kishii M; Bonnett DG; Berry WL; Lata JC.

2013b. A paradigm shift towards low-nitrifying production

systems: The role of biological nitrification inhibition

(BNI). Annals of Botany 112:297−316.

Tilman D; Fargione J; Wolff B; D’Antonio C; Dobson A;

Howarth R; Shindler D; Schlesinger WH; Simberloff D;

Swackhamer D. 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven

global environmental change. Science 292:281−284.

Tilman D; Cassman KG; Matson PA; Naylor R; Polasky S.

2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production

practices. Nature 418:671−677.

van der Hoek KW. 1998. Nitrogen efficiency in global animal

production. Environmental Pollution 102:127−132.

Worthington TR; Danks PW. 1992. Nitrate leaching and in-

tensive outdoor pig production. Soil Use and Management

8:56−60.

Zhu X; Burger M; Doane TA; Horwath WR. 2013. Ammonia

oxidation pathways and nitrifier denitrification are signifi-

cant sources of N2O and NO under low oxygen availability.


United States of America 110:6328−6333.

© 2013








Brazilian agroforestry systems for cattle and sheep

ROBERTO G. DE ALMEIDA1, CARLOS MAURÍCIO S. DE ANDRADE

2, DOMINGOS S.C. PACIULLO

3, PAULO

C.C. FERNANDES4, ANA CLARA R. CAVALCANTE

5, RODRIGO A. BARBOSA

1 AND CACILDA B. DO VALLE

1

1Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Embrapa Gado de Corte, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.

www.cnpgc.embrapa.br 2Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Embrapa Acre, Rio Branco, AC, Brazil. www.cpafac.embrapa.br

3Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Embrapa Gado de Leite, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil.

www.cnpgl.embrapa.br 4Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Embrapa Amazônia Oriental, Belém, PA, Brazil. www.cpatu.embrapa.br

5Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Embrapa Caprinos e Ovinos, Sobral, CE, Brazil. www.cnpc.embrapa.br

Keywords: Beef cattle, Brazilian regions, integrated crop-livestock-forest systems, tropical grasslands.

Abstract

Agroforestry systems for animal husbandry in Brazil, including integrated crop-livestock-forest systems (ICLF), are very

diverse, and present several technical, environmental and socio-economic benefits. For each of the country’s 5 regions

(Southeast, Central-West, North, Northeast and South) the prevailing agroforestry systems holding animals are presented,

their potential and constraints discussed and research needs identified. In general, such systems are not broadly adopted,

mainly because of their level of complexity compared with traditional systems, as well as some lack of understanding by

farmers regarding their benefits. To change this situation, in the last 5 years, the Brazilian Government has allocated finan-

cial resources in terms of credit for development as well as for research and technology transfer addressing ICLF systems,

including good agricultural practices and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. The goal is to improve competitiveness

of the Brazilian agribusiness sector.

Resumen

Los sistemas agroforestales para producción animal, que incluyen sistemas integrados de cultivos, ganadería y árboles

(ICLF, por su sigla en inglés), son bastante diversos en Brasil. Estos sistemas presentan varios beneficios técnicos, ambien-

tales y económicos. Para cada una de las 5 regiones del país (Sureste, Centro-Oeste, Norte, Nordeste y Sur) se presentan los

sistemas prevalentes de agroforestería con animales, se discuten su potencial y limitaciones y se identifican tópicos de in-

vestigación. En general, estos sistemas no han sido ampliamente adoptados por los productores, debido principalmente a su

alta complejidad que dificulta su implementación comparados con los sistemas tradicionales, pero también por cierta falta

de reconocimiento de sus beneficios por parte de los productores. Para cambiar esta situación, durante los últimos 5 años el

gobierno de Brasil ha destinado recursos financieros para créditos, investigación y transferencia de tecnología hacia los sis-

temas ICFL, incluyendo buenas prácticas agrícolas y la reducción de emisión de gases con efecto invernadero para, de esta

forma, mejorar la competitividad de la agricultura del país.

Introduction

Agroforestry systems are being used in all Brazilian re-

gions (Southeast, Central-West, North, Northeast and

South), with combination of several plant and animal

___________ Correspondence: Roberto Giolo de Almeida, Embrapa Gado de Corte,

Avenida Rádio Maia, 830 - Zona Rural, Campo Grande CEP 79106-

550, MS, Brazil.


species, using many arrangements of components in time

and space. They can have many purposes and functionali-

ties in only one system, usually focused on subsistence

agriculture. In turn, the Brazilian ICLF systems (ILPF in

Portuguese), have the tendency to be commercial opera-

tions. They usually encompass two or three components

handled as mechanized plantations with rotation of crops

and pastures using no-till systems (Macedo 2010; Balbino

et al. 2011a). These systems allow high land use efficien-

cy, with resulting technical, environmental and socio-

economic benefits.


176 R.G. Almeida, C.M. Andrade, D.S.C. Paciullo, P.C.C. Fernandes, A.C.R. Cavalcante, R.A. Barbosa and C.B. do Valle


Information about traditional cattle systems, integrated

crop-livestock systems (without the tree component) and

the evolution of studies with forage species and pastures in

Brazil can be found in Ferraz and Felício (2010), Carvalho

et al. (2010) and Euclides et al. (2010), respectively.

According to Costa et al. (2011), despite favorable envi-

ronmental conditions and land availability in Brazil, sheep

husbandry is not well developed in terms of total produc-

tion or yields of meat and hides, when compared with

countries like Uruguay, Argentina, New Zealand and Aus-

tralia. About 54% of the flock in Brazil are hair sheep

breeds, concentrated in the semi-arid environment of the

Northeast (Table 1). The remainder are spread in the other

regions, especially Rio Grande do Sul (southern Brazil)

with 23% of the national flock. With a cattle herd of

212.8 M head (IBGE 2011), Brazil is one of the largest

beef exporters in the world. Cattle ranching is spread

throughout the country, being a very important economic

activity. However, statistics for herd rearing in agroforestry

systems are limited.

Official data indicate that only 10.7% of sown pasture

areas are degraded, even though some authors indicate, in

recent decades, that more than half of the sown pastures in

Brazil are degraded to some degree, either in the Cerrado

biome (Sano et al. 1999; Zimmer and Euclides 2000) or

Rain Forest biome (Serrão et al. 1993).

According to Balbino et al. (2011b), Brazil has around

67.8 Mha of land suitable for different ICLF models, with

no need for further clearing of areas of original vegetation.

In 2010, it was estimated that a total area of 1.6 Mha was

covered with specific ICLF systems, while the official cen-

sus from 2006 indicated an area of 4.12 Mha with agro-

forestry systems holding cattle (Table 1).

In the context of livestock husbandry, ICLF systems

display micro-climate improvement for grazing animals

and have been adopted as alternatives for sown pasture rec-

lamation, farm diversification and intensification.

According to Zimmer et al. (2012), average beef yields on

natural grasslands and sown, i.e. “improved” pastures un-

der traditional management, are, respectively, 30 and 90

kg/ha/yr, while potential yields for improved pastures, ei-

ther using traditional reclamation or adopting ICLF

systems, are, respectively, 180 and 340 kg/ha/yr. This il-

lustrates the substantial progress the Brazilian cattle

industry can achieve in the next few years if ICLF systems

are adopted to satisfy domestic and export demand for

beef.

From an environmental perspective, ICLF systems with

250‒350 eucalypt (Eucalyptus spp.) trees per hectare, de-

signed for harvesting trees between 8 and 12 years, would

yield 25 m3

wood/ha/yr (Ofugi et al. 2008).This corre-

sponds to an annual sequestration of around 5 t/ha carbon

or 18 t/ha CO2-eq, which would compensate for GHG

emissions of 12 adult beef animals. However, due to the

higher complexity of ICLF systems, their adoption remains

limited, though growing in the last 5 years.

Availability of official credit for implementing ICLF

systems from 2008, through the ‘Programa de Produção

Sustentável do Agronegócio (Produsa)’ (Sustainable Agri-

business Program), has attracted farmers to adopt these

technologies. In 2009, from the commitment made at the

COP-15, Copenhagen, the Brazilian Government created a

program named ABC, ‘Agricultura de Baixa Emissão de

Carbono’ (Low Carbon Emissions Agriculture), with the

goal of stimulating voluntary reduction of GHG emissions

from the agricultural sector. This program makes available

credit for reclaiming 15 Mha of degraded pastures, includ-

ing implementation of ICLF systems on 4 Mha by 2020.

Demand for professionals specialized in design and im-

plementation of ICLF projects exceeds their availability

and is a critical limit to development of such systems (Al-

meida et al. 2012b). The Brazilian Agricultural Research

Corporation (Embrapa), together with some state research

organizations, universities and private companies, has

Table 1. Cattle and sheep herds (data from 2011), areas of natural grasslands, sown pastures in good condition and degraded, and areas

with agroforestry systems (AFS) holding cattle (data from 2006) per region.

Region Cattle1 Sheep

1 Natural

grasslands2

Sown pastures2

AFS3

Good

condition Degraded

---------- M head (%) ---------- --------------------------------- M ha (%) ---------------------------------

Southeast 39.34 (19) 0.77 (4) 10.96 (19) 15.21 (17) 1.66 (17) 0.58 (14)

Central-West 72.66 (34) 1.21 (7) 13.81 (24) 41.87 (45) 3.36 (34) 0.56 (14)

North 43.24 (20) 0.63 (4) 6.00 (10) 18.70 (20) 2.20 (22) 0.61 (15)

Northeast 29.59 (14) 10.11(57) 16.03 (28) 12.34 (13) 2.24 (23) 2.15 (52)

South 27.99 (13) 4.95 (28) 10.84 (19) 4.39 (5) 0.45 (4) 0.22 (5)

Brazil 212.82 17.67 57.64 92.51 9.91 4.12 1Source: IBGE 2011;

2source: IBGE 2006a;

3source: IBGE 2006b.

Crop-livestock-forest systems in Brazil 177


focused on demonstrating the benefits of these systems in

an endeavor to expand their promotion, through establish-

ing Technology Reference Units (TRUs) in several

strategic locations throughout Brazil. These demonstration

fields are usually located on private farms, in a partnership

arrangement. While serving as a demonstration, these

TRUs are also used for technical and scientific observa-

tions for improving the systems, based on observations by

farmers and scientists involved (Porfírio-da-Silva and

Baggio 2003). In 2011 there were 194 TRUs in operation

throughout Brazil (Balbino et al. 2011b; Almeida et al.

2012b). More recently, Embrapa and its national and inter-

national partners created the Pecus Network (www. cppse.

embrapa.br/redepecus/) with the aim of studying integrated

cattle production systems, comparing improved manage-

ment techniques with traditional systems, reducing GHG

emissions and increasing carbon sequestration in order to

provide guidelines for official policies regarding the sector

in Brazil.

The next sections will discuss integrated systems for an-

imal husbandry in the 5 Brazilian regions, based on an

array of economic, social and political peculiarities and

their interactions with local conditions.

Southeast Region

The Southeast region encompasses the States of Espírito

Santo, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, cover-

ing an area of 0.92 Mkm2, representing 11% of the

Brazilian territory. It is the most industrialized and richest

part of Brazil. Its climate is predominantly tropical, with

some areas having high-elevation tropical climate, subtrop-

ical and humid-coastal. The region usually has 2 well-

defined seasons, one hot and rainy (Spring‒Summer) and

the other with little rain and lower temperatures

(Fall‒Winter). Tropical forest (Atlantic Forest) was the

original dominant vegetation, which, as a result of defor-

estation, now occupies less than 10% of the original area.

The Southeast region has 27.8 Mha of pastures, sup-

porting 39.3 M cattle and 0.7 M sheep (IBGE 2006a;

2011), and has a well-developed and diversified agribusi-

ness sector. Cattle production, especially dairy, is

important in the region. It was originally based on Melinis

minutiflora and Hyparrhenia rufa pastures, which were

later replaced by Brachiaria and Panicum grasses, which

dominate the grazing systems in the area. The first inte-

grated systems in the region were non-systematic, mainly

through cattle grazing in eucalypt plantations held by

commercial afforestation companies at the end of the1970s

and early 1980s (Garcia and Couto 1997). In such systems,

cattle grazing reduced implementation costs and helped to

control understory vegetation, reducing fire risk in the es-

tablishment years. From the 1990s onwards, research on

actual silvopastoral systems, in which tree and cattle com-

ponents were intended to co-exist in the system during its

whole productive cycle, was intensified. In both systems,

the main tree species used were from the genera Eucalyp-

tus and the closely related Corymbia, while Brachiaria

was used for pastures. At that time, a pasture shading mod-

el was started, using leguminous tree species to reduce in-

loco temperatures and therefore to reduce heat stress on

animals. This would also contribute nutrients to the sys-

tem, especially nitrogen, through biological fixation of

atmospheric N by these species. In the long term, improv-

ing soil fertility would improve yields and the better

pasture would reduce soil exposure, promoting pasture sus-

tainability (Carvalho et al. 2001).

Systematically including a crop component in the mod-

el, characteristic of ICLF systems, happened only in the

late 1990s, mainly using maize, sorghum, rice or soybean

integrated with Eucalyptus spp. and Brachiaria spp. Adop-

tion of integrated systems had been limited by scarce

resources for implementation as well as by the small num-

ber of qualified professionals for technical advice. The

high initial investment problem has been solved by availa-

bility of financial resources through federal and state credit

policies for the sector. In parallel, regular training opportu-

nities for agriculture-related professionals, through

continued education and courses, have improved the avail-

ability of technical advice in the area. Such initiatives are

starting to show results, as demonstrated through the in-

creasing numbers of integrated systems implemented in

different parts of the Southeast region. The model, using

eucalypt tree plantations, cultivated in rows 10‒20 m apart

over Brachiaria spp. pastures, with or without integrating

annual crops, has expanded over traditional grazing areas.

For beef production, the cattle breed is usually Nelore,

whereas for dairy, a crossbred Holstein x Zebu cow is

mostly used.

With integrated systems, competition for light, nutrients

and water increases as trees grow. Degree of shading on

understory species progressively increases, causing mor-

phological and physiological changes in the forage. Intense

shading, usually eliminating more than 50% of

photosynthetically active radiation, drastically reduces for-

age yields from pastures, endangering their persistence and

therefore the sustainability of the system (Paciullo et al.

2010). For this reason, management strategies for the tree

component must allow only moderate reduction of radia-

tion incidence on pastures. When using Eucalyptus spp.,

the most convenient distances between tree rows result

in densities from 150 to 450 trees per hectare. One

must also consider aspects like: tree component purpose

(timber, fodder, shade/shelter); local relief characteristics,



especially slope; machinery specifications when cultivating

crops integrated with pasture; and finally on-farm man-

agement (paddock sizes, erosion control).

If the main goal is to produce higher quality timber

(added value), a lower tree density is recommended

(150‒300 trees/ha) in single rows. On the other hand,

higher densities using partial thinnings (4‒5 years, 8‒9

years and 12‒15 years) to allow higher radiation into the

understory allows for financial income every 4 years. Re-

garding animal production, results have been satisfactory.

Managed pastures in silvopastoral systems, with little or no

fertilization, have shown carrying capacities from 1.5 to

2.5 AU/ha, weight gains of 0.5‒0.7 kg/animal/d and beef

production of 200‒350 kg/ha/yr (Bernardino et al. 2011;

Paciullo et al. 2011). Some studies have shown that effi-

cient fertilization can be carried out with moderate doses

under moderate shading (Andrade et al. 2001; Bernardino

et al. 2011). However, despite the growing adoption, the

total area under these systems is still modest, when com-

pared with the potential they have to improve agribusiness

in the Southeast region.

Central-West Region

The Central-West region, or Central Brazil, is composed of

the States of Goiás, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul and

the Federal District. The total area is 1.61 Mkm2, repre-

senting 19% of the Brazilian territory, with an economy

based essentially on agricultural activities. Having mostly

a tropical climate with some subtropical areas in the south-

ern part of the region, it has the largest cattle herd in Brazil

with 72.6 M head and 1.2 M sheep, on a grazing area of

59 Mha (IBGE 2006a; 2011). The common cattle husband-

ry systems are dual-purpose and beef, with a predominance

of Zebu cattle, especially the Nelore breed. Goiás State

shows the most developed dairy systems of all states in the

region.

The region has 3 major biomes: Pantanal, Rain Forest

and Cerrado (savanna). The Pantanal biome is a floodable

plain covering about 15% of the region. Its cattle systems

are traditionally extensive cow-calf operations on natural

grasslands, resulting in low production coefficients. In

some non-flooded areas, Brachiaria spp. are sown for pas-

ture.

In the Rain Forest biome in Central Brazil, the devel-

opment of agroforestry systems for cattle is similar to

those in Northern Brazil. Main forage used are Brachiaria

species (B. brizantha, B. decumbens and B. humidicola)

and, to some extent also Panicum maximum (cvv.

Tanzânia, Mombaça and Massai). Grass-legume mixed

pastures contain mostly Pueraria phaseoloides as the leg-

ume species (Teixeira et al. 2000).

The Cerrado biome, with a savanna type vegetation, co-

vers over 50% of the region. Cattle systems are more

variable. Integrated systems are predominantly associated

with no-till crop systems mostly growing soybean, maize,

sorghum and rice. The most used trees in these systems are

from the genera Eucalyptus and Corymbia. According to

Macedo (2005), the predominant forage species, ranked by

area, are: Brachiaria decumbens (55%), B. brizantha

(20%), Panicum maximum (12%), B. humidicola (9%) and

others (4%). In transition areas between Cerrado and Rain

Forest, silvopastoral systems usually have a greater variety

of trees, using either native (Schizolobium amazonicum,

Swietenia macrophylla, Astronium fraxinifolium and

Hevea brasiliensis) or introduced (Tectona grandis,

Ochroma pyramidale, Khaya ivorensis, Acacia mangium

and Azadirachta indica) species.

Under ICLF systems, crops are grown between tree

rows for the first 2 or 3 years, so that trees can grow strong

enough to tolerate animal browsing. Crops are then re-

placed by pastures until tree harvesting. Pasture production

decreases with increased shading caused by trees; howev-

er, with densities from 227 to 357 trees per hectare,

stocking rates range from 1.3 to 1.8 AU/ha, weight gains

from 0.4 to 0.7 kg/animal/d and beef production from 130

to 245 kg/ha/yr (Almeida et al. 2012a; 2012b).

Silvopastoral systems are usually used in areas with

limitations for grain crops, like poor soils, unfavorable

climate, inadequate infrastructure and logistics.

With regard to research, there were only few experi-

ments involving ICLF systems in Central Brazil until the

early 2000s (Daniel et al. 2001); thus guidelines were

based on studies carried out in Southeast Brazil. Looking

at future research and technology transfer demands, the

formal research group ‘Sistemas de produção sustentáveis

e cadeias produtivas da pecuária de corte (GSP)’ (Sus-

tainable production systems and beef cattle value chains)

from Embrapa Beef Cattle, carrying out research in the

Cerrado biome (Zimmer et al. 2012), has identified the fol-

lowing needs: (1) to evaluate new forage grass options

adapted to shading under ICLF; (2) to evaluate forage leg-

ume options aiming to interrupt the cycle of parasites and

diseases, while improving nitrogen fixation, reducing pro-

duction costs and improving animal diets, with emphasis

on yield; (3) to select tree species to broaden options be-

yond eucalypts; (4) to develop cultivation strategies to

allow tree planting while retaining pastures, without sow-

ing grain crops, when local conditions are unsuitable for

planting a grain crop or farmers are unwilling to sow one;

(5) to expand experiments with extensive dairy and sheep

production; (6) to improve assessments of carbon balance

and life-cycle analysis of products from ICLF systems; (7)

to improve long-term experiments in strategic locations, in



order to evaluate carbon dynamics and soil quality chang-

es; (8) to expand technology transfer initiatives and

assessment of economic aspects of ICLF systems, especial-

ly on commercial farms in different areas; and (9) to

establish a strategic zoning for different ICLF systems,

considering soils, climate and existing infrastructure.

North Region

The North region covers the States of Acre, Amapá, Ama-

zonas, Pará, Rondônia, Roraima and Tocantins, and is the

largest area, with 3.86 Mkm2 (45% of the national territo-

ry). As the region with the lowest population density, it is

currently the Brazilian agricultural frontier. An equatorial

climate is predominant, and Amazon or Equatorial Rain

Forest covers 90% of the surface, with some fragments of

Cerrado. Pastures occupy 26.9 Mha, carrying 43.2 M cattle

and 0.6 M sheep (IBGE 2006a; 2011).

Most of the research on silvopastoral systems in North-

ern Brazil involves isolated and incremental studies to: (1)

select forage species tolerant of shading; (2) identify prom-

ising native tree species for silvopastoral systems; (3)

broaden knowledge on selected native tree species; (4)

evaluate introduced tree species like eucalypts (Eucalyptus

spp.), teak (Tectona grandis), African mahogany (Khaya

ivorensis) and Indian neem (Azadirachta indica); and (5)

evaluate certain interactions among system components,

especially tree-forage-soil.

As a whole, there is a lack of studies about productive

and reproductive performance of animals in these systems,

especially long-term, multi-disciplinary studies carried out

in mature silvopastoral systems.

Despite advances in the last 15‒20 years, silvopastoral

and ICLF systems can still be considered developing tech-

nologies in Northern Brazil. For this reason, adoption

levels are still low and a series of technical and socio-

economic hindrances have been identified (Dias-Filho and

Ferreira 2008): (1) the need for relatively high initial in-

vestments with tree plantation and cultivation practices; (2)

low turnover, with low initial profitability (first 3‒4 years);

(3) higher intrinsic complexity of integrated systems, de-

manding more commitment and higher level of knowledge

regarding tree species and future market prospects for tree

products; and (4) farmers’ incomplete perception regarding

benefits of silvopastoral systems beyond shading for cattle.

The most common silvopastoral system in Northern

Brazil is the scattered trees on pastures model, usually with

native trees from natural recovery. This happens because

shading is the major motivation for farmers to have trees

on pastures, since local high temperatures and humidity

cause remarkable thermal stress on cattle, especially cross-

breds with higher European content. In this region,

potential losses in milk production caused by thermal

stress range from 10 to 20% in cows yielding 15 L/d

(INMET 2012). In the Cerrado pockets in the Northern

region, integrated systems follow the patterns used in Cen-

tral Brazil.

Northeast Region

The Brazilian Northeast encompasses the States of Ala-

goas, Bahia, Ceará, Maranhão, Paraíba, Pernambuco,

Piauí, Rio Grande do Norte and Sergipe, with a total area

of 1.55 Mkm2 or 18% of Brazil. From that, 0.96 Mkm

2 are

located in the semi-arid zone of the country. Pastures oc-

cupy 30.6 Mha, of which 52% is natural grasslands,

supporting a total of 29.6 M cattle, 10.1 M sheep and 8.5

M goats (91% of the national goat herd) (IBGE 2006a;

2011).

The predominant climate is hot semi-arid with annual

rainfall ranging from 400 to 650 mm, and irregular precipi-

tation, with dry periods up to 8 months per year.

Sometimes the dry season can be even longer; this phe-

nomenon is cyclical and can occur from once in 3 years to

once in 10 years. Caatinga is the main vegetation type,

composed of a variety of xerophytic plant types including

monocots and dicots, and from thorny woody species to

succulents (Araújo Filho 2006). Average biomass produc-

tion in Caatinga is 4 t DM/ha/yr, of which only 10% is

considered edible forage. Animal and plant production sys-

tems are diversified, with cattle usually kept along with

sheep and goats. In cropping areas, subsistence agriculture

is carried out, with animals grazing crop residues. In the

traditional systems, ‘slashing and burning’ of native vege-

tation for establishing new cultivation areas, as well as

overgrazing of natural grasslands, has caused negative im-

pacts on the ecosystem, increasing the area undergoing

degradation and desertification (Carvalho 2006).

Production systems based on agroforestry have been

proposed as an alternative to the traditional model. The

goal is to ensure both ecosystem stability and sustainability

of agricultural production by means of adapted land use

practices in this difficult environment. The agrosilvo-

pastoral system proposed aims to stabilize agriculture, effi-

ciently use native vegetation as forage and rationalize

wood extraction in an integrated and diversified way

(Araújo Filho et al. 2006). Strategies for reaching these

goals start by eliminating fire and complete deforestation.

Next, tools for forage budgeting are used to adjust stocking

rate and, finally, a systematic pruning management of na-

tive trees is proposed to exploit local wood and timber

potential. The resulting system is composed of 3 modules:

crop, pasture and forest.

Selective thinning of forest occurs instead of complete



land clearing, with 10‒15% of the area kept mainly with

native trees (Araújo Filho et al. 1998a). Subsequently,

bush/tree species, mainly Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena

leucocephala, are planted to be used as green manure in

the rainy season. They are combined with crops like maize,

beans, sesame, cotton, castor bean and sorghum. Legume

trees are kept low and their canopy, at the end of the rainy

season, can be used as hay for animal feeding. From the

second year, these legumes can be browsed by sheep and

goats at the beginning of the dry season. With forest thin-

ning, available understory forage vegetation increases and

can be grazed after crop harvesting at the end of the rainy

season. In the dry season the grass component and crop

residues on the area can be grazed. The crop component,

therefore, contributes to both plant and animal production.

The pasture component is a Caatinga area where

30‒40% of the tree cover is kept, varying according to the

floristic composition. The maximum level of utilization of

the pasture allowed is 60%. Knowing the floristic compo-

sition is essential for setting the management plan, which

might estimate stocking rates based on forage availability.

This is important to avoid degrading the forage potential of

native grasslands. Forest thinning as a management strate-

gy for Caatinga can increase the amount of forage

available to grazing animals from 10 to 90% (Araújo Filho

et al. 2002). As a strategy to improve forage production,

perennial grass species like Cenchrus ciliaris, Urochloa

mosambicensis and Panicum maximum cv. Massai, can be

introduced, producing up to an additional 3 t of forage per

ha. Stocking rates have varied from 0.5 to 3 ha per adult

sheep or goat. Areas combining thinning with improved

grasses show the highest carrying capacities.

The forest component is the original Caatinga vegeta-

tion itself. Some species with timber potential are cut in 7-

year average cycles and can be used either for timber or

forage (Carvalho et al. 2004). This forest area can be used

for grazing during the dry season (Araújo Filho et al.

1998b). The basis of agrosilvopastoral systems for the

Caatinga is manipulating the woody component to allow

development of the understory. This procedure is still done

by hand, for both the system implementation and mainte-

nance, so one of the major limitations for such systems is

rural labor scarcity (Campanha et al. 2010). As a possible

solution, there is a current trend of developing appropriate

machinery for mechanizing this activity, specific to

Caatinga conditions, including its topography. These ma-

chines must be able to cut trees and regrowth bushes as

well as grinding their branches and stems, reducing de-

mand for labor.

Seeding and crop maintenance are also carried out

manually. The fact that this model precludes the use of

herbicides and chemical pesticides increases the need for

labor. Mechanization of activities and the use of biological

pest control and plant-based products to restrain growth

without eliminating native grasses, can help solve the labor

problem.

In animal production the use of plant-based products is

recommended for control of the main diseases, especially

worms. In the integrated system, this problem is more

acute in goats than sheep (Campanha et al. 2010), making

sheep husbandry more viable than dairy goats. The latter

represent a very interesting option to ensure a quick return

on investment. In the semi-arid region, this activity is cur-

rently included in several governmental programs; thus, it

should not be left aside as an option for the system. To

succeed, farmers must have some previous experience with

dairy animal management, in order to avoid sanitary prob-

lems, which mostly affect the system’s economic viability.

Adjusting stocking rates through grazing management

is also a challenge (Campanha et al. 2010). It is important

that, when working with the native grass components, local

forage resources are known, in order to make stocking rate

adjustments based on both quality and quantity of biomass.

Basing decisions only on biomass quantity can lead to deg-

radation through overgrazing of highly palatable forage

species, leaving behind the less palatable ones. Establish-

ing a workable grazing management policy, with well-

defined grazing and resting periods, is crucial for this kind

of system.

There is also a need to make better use of the timber po-

tential of some native Caatinga species that are part of the

system’s forest component.

Since these systems present some differentiated charac-

teristics like sustainable use of natural resources, family

labor and traditional goods, costs are higher and yields are

lower, making it difficult to compete in the regular market

with conventional products from the area. Therefore, it is

necessary to better explore specific market niches like fair

trade and organic product markets, adding value to goods

coming from such production systems. Another important

aspect is the need for an environmental services compensa-

tion policy. At least 3 services from the system can be

identified: plant biodiversity; carbon sequestration; and

organic matter deposition in the soil (Aguiar 2011).

In short, agrosilvopastoral systems for the Brazilian

semi-arid areas are a group of aggregated technologies

aiming at sustainable plant and animal agriculture. These

technologies can be grouped according to the 3 compo-

nents:

Crop component: no burning, improved maize and

sorghum varieties adapted to the area, crops for biodiesel

production, environmental service as biodiversity preserva-

tion and organic matter deposition, no-tillage seeding.

Cattle component: sustainable management of



Caatinga vegetation through management of the woody

component for animal grazing, use of locally produced

low-cost supplements (e.g. sorghum silage, crop residues

and protein-forage reserves).

Forest component: Mimosa caesalpiniifolia (‘sabiá’)

management for wood and forage production.

Agrosilvopastoral systems in the Brazilian semi-arid ar-

eas, despite their technological challenges, have been

adopted mainly by rural communities, whose production

model is based on agroecological principles and land redis-

tribution projects. Such communities adhere to the basic

principles of the model, like no use of fire, selective cut-

ting of tree species and preservation of gallery forests.

Additionally, these communities have inserted some new

elements into the system, expanding product diversity

through growing different traditional crops like cassava,

castor bean and melons and harvesting wild honey.

These systems are evolving; the basic principles are

well defined. Therefore it is necessary to solve minor tech-

nical hindrances and focus on broader aspects, involving

policies and markets, so that the full potential of

agrosilvopastoral systems in the semi-arid areas can gener-

ate better living conditions for the significant population in

this part of Brazil.

South Region

The Brazilian Southern region encompasses the States of

Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, and covers

0.58 Mkm2 (7% of the national territory), being the second

most developed region in the country and the one with the

largest Human Development Index (HDI). It keeps about

13% of the Brazilian cattle herd and 28% of the sheep

flock, with pastures covering around 16 Mha (IBGE

2006a; 2011). In Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina,

natural grasslands constitute more than 80% of the total

pasture area. Climate varies from tropical to humid sub-

tropical, with a predominance of the latter. Vegetation is

characterized by tropical forests at the coast and subtropi-

cal forests in the inland. In the southern part, the biome is

called Campos Sulinos (Southern Plains, a grass-bush

steppe). Cattle in this region enjoy a good level of herd

management; however, production is still less than its

technical potential because of limiting factors like seasonal

feed deficiency and pasture degradation.

In Southern Brazil, Paraná State has the longest record

of silvopastoral systems, especially in beef cattle opera-

tions. The main driver for their adoption is the beneficial

presence of trees on pastures, serving as shelter for cattle

and reducing frost effects on the forage in colder months

(Ribaski et al. 2012).

Other initiatives developed in the region, particularly in

Rio Grande do Sul, emphasize silvopastoral systems as an

important strategy for sustainable rural development. At

the Campos Sulinos, forage production of tropical and sub-

tropical grasses is markedly seasonal. This kind of

vegetation has a major influence on the socio-economic

life of farmers, due to its importance as a forage source for

their cattle and sheep herds plus other livestock species

(Coelho 1999). However, natural fragility of soils, together

with their low suitability for crops, as well as traditional

land use for extensive cattle ranching, has accelerated ero-

sion, leading to a gradual increase of areas with scattered

vegetation and large bare areas with sandy soils. These en-

vironmental losses have had negative impacts on socio-

economic conditions, leading to a decline in farmers’ live-

lihoods. Sustainable development in the area has been the

subject of several studies and there is consensus on the

need to diversify the local production matrix, in order to

improve income of the productive sector. The use of

silvopastoral systems has been seen as an important strate-

gy for sustainable land use, and also as a new source of

added value for farmers through wood production (Ribaski

et al. 2012).

Conclusion

Despite many benefits from ICLF systems for cattle pro-

duction and availability of appropriate technologies, there

are still limiting factors for their broader adoption in

Brazil, especially related to research, technology transfer,

capacity building and credit availability. However, in the

last 5 years, the Brazilian Government has strongly invest-

ed in these aspects, aiming to overcome the above

limitations. Implementation of research on those issues

raised as priorities will improve the likelihood of increased

adoption of these production systems.

References

Aguair KR. 2011. Valoração e pagamento dos serviços ambien-

tais: Alternativa de rentabilidade extra para um sistema

agrossilvipastoril do bioma Caatinga. M.Sc. Thesis. Univer-

sidade Federal do Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.

Almeida RG; Barbosa RA; Zimmer AH; Kichel AN. 2012a.

Forrageiras em sistemas de produção de bovinos em inte-

gração. In: Bungenstab DJ, ed. Sistemas de integração

lavoura-pecuária-floresta: A produção sustentável. 2nd Edn.

Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa),

Brasília, DF, Brazil. p. 87−94.

Almeida RG; Zimmer AH; Kichel AN; Macedo MCM; Costa

JAA. 2012b. Estratégias de recuperação de pastagens por

intermédio de sistemas integrados de produção de carne



bovina. Proceedings of the 22nd Congresso Brasileiro de

Zootecnia – Zootec 2012, Universidade Federal de Mato

Grosso, Cuiabá, MT, Brazil.

Andrade CMS; Garcia R; Couto L; Pereira OG. 2001. Fatores

limitantes ao crescimento do capim-tanzânia em um sistema

agrossilvipastoril com eucalipto, na região dos cerrados de

Minas Gerais. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 30:

1178−1185.

Araújo Filho JA. 2006. O bioma Caatinga. In: Falcão Sobrinho

J; Falcão CLC, eds. Semi-árido: Diversidade, fragilidade e

potencialidades. Sobral Gráfica, Sobral, CE, Brazil. p.

49−70.

Araújo Filho JA; Barbosa TML; Carvalho FC; Cavalcante ACR.

1998a. Sistema de produção agrossilvipastoril para o semi-

árido nordestino. Proceedings of the 2nd Congresso Brasilei-

ro de Sistemas Agroflorestais. Empresa Brasileira de

Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA)-CPATU, Belém, PA,

Brazil. p. 187−188.

Araújo Filho JA; Leite ER; Silva NL. 1998b. Contribution of

woody species to the diet composition of goat and sheep in

Caatinga vegetation. Pasturas Tropicales 20(2):41−45.

Araújo Filho JA; Carvalho FC; Garcia R; Sousa RA. 2002. Efei-

to da manipulação da vegetação lenhosa sobre a produção e

compartimentalização da fitomassa pastável de uma caatinga

sucessional. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 31:11−19.

Araújo Filho JA; Holanda Jr EV; Silva NL; Sousa FB; Franca

FM. 2006. Sistema agrossilvipastoril − Embrapa Caprinos.

In: Lima GFC; Holanda Jr EV; Maciel FC, eds. Criação

familiar de caprinos e ovinos no Rio Grande do Norte:

Orientações para viabilizar o negócio rural. EMATER-RN,

Natal, RN, Brazil. p. 105−131.

Balbino LC; Barcellos AO; Stone LF. 2011a. Marco referencial:

integração lavoura-pecuária-floresta. Empresa Brasileira de

Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa), Brasília, DF, Brazil.

Balbino LC; Martinez GB; Galerani PR. 2011b. Ações de trans-

ferência de tecnologia para integração lavoura-pecuária-

floresta 2007-2010. Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina, DF,

Brazil.

Bernardino FS; Tonucci RG; Garcia R; Neves JCL; Rocha GC.

2011. Produção de forragem e desempenho de novilhos de

corte em um sistema silvipastoril: Efeito de doses de

nitrogênio e oferta de forragem. Revista Brasileira de Zoo-

tecnia 40:1412−1419.

Campanha MM; Pereira VG; Bomfim MAD. 2010. Sistema

agrossilvipastoril caprinos e ovinos: Reunião técnica. Do-

cumentos No. 97. Embrapa Caprinos e Ovinos, Sobral, CE,

Brazil.

Carvalho FC. 2006. Sustentabilidade de sistemas agroflorestais

pecuários em ambiente semi-árido. In: Falcão Sobrinho J;

Falcão CLC, eds. Semi-árido: Diversidade, fragilidade e po-

tencialidades. Sobral Gráfica, Sobral, CE, Brazil. p. 71−109.

Carvalho FC; Garcia R; Araújo Filho JA; Couto L; Neves JCL;

Rogério MCP. 2004. Manejo in situ do Sabiá (Mimosa

caesalpiniifolia Benth.) para a produção simultânea de ma-

deira e forragem, em um sistema silvopastoril. Revista

Brasileira de Zootecnia 1:121−129.

Carvalho JLN; Raucci GS; Cerri CEP; Bernoux M; Feigl BJ;

Wruck FJ; Cerri CC. 2010. Impact of pasture, agriculture

and crop-livestock systems on soil C stocks in Brazil. Soil

and Tillage Research 110:175−186.

Carvalho MM; Xavier DF; Alvim MJ. 2001. Uso de legumino-

sas arbóreas na recuperação e sustentabilidade de pastagens

cultivadas. In: Carvalho MM; Alvim MJ; CarneiroJC, eds.

Sistemas agroflorestais pecuários: Opções de sustentabilida-

de para áreas tropicais e subtropicais. Embrapa Gado de

Leite and FAO, Brasília, DF, Brazil. p. 189−204.

Coelho RW. 1999. Manejo de pastagens melhoradas de inverno.

Circular Técnica No. 17. Embrapa Clima Temperado, Pelo-

tas, RS, Brazil.

Costa JAA; Cardoso EE; Reis FA; Oliveira AR; Silva WC.

2011. Perspectivas da pesquisa em ovinocultura de corte no

Centro-Oeste. Documentos No. 184. Embrapa Gado de Cor-

te, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.

Daniel O; Passos CAM; Couto L. 2001. Sistemas agroflorestais

(silvipastoris e agrossilvipastoris) na Região Centro-Oeste

do Brasil: Potencialidades, estado atual da pesquisa

e da adoção de tecnologia. In: Carvalho MM; Alvim MJ;

Carneiro JC, eds. Sistemas agroflorestais pecuários: Opções

de sustentabilidade para áreas tropicais e subtropicais. Em-

brapa Gado de Leite and FAO, Brasília, DF, Brazil. p.

153−164.

Dias-Filho MB; Ferreira JN. 2008. Barreiras à adoção de siste-

mas silvipastoris no Brasil. Documentos No. 347. Embrapa

Amazônia Oriental, Belém, PA, Brazil.

Euclides VPB; Valle CB; Macedo MCM; Almeida RG; Montag-

ner DB; Barbosa RA. 2010. Brazilian scientific progress in

pasture research during the first decade of XXI century.

Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 39:151−168.

Ferraz JBS; Felício PE. 2010. Production systems – an example

from Brazil. Meat Science 84:238−243.

Garcia R; Couto L. 1997. Sistemas silvipastoris: Tecnologia

emergente de sustentabilidade. Proceedings of the 1st

Simpósio Internacional sobre Produção Animal em Pastejo.

Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, Brazil.

p. 447−471.

IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). 2006a.

Área dos estabelecimentos agropecuários por utilização das

terras (Tabela 854).

(Retrieved 20 February 2013 from

www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/tab-ela/listabl.asp?z=t&c=854).

IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). 2006b.

Área dos estabelecimentos agropecuários por utilização das

terras (Tabela 1011).



IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística). 2011.

Pesquisa Pecuária Municipal: Efetivo dos rebanhos por tipo

de rebanho (Tabela 73).



INMET (Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia). 2012. Potenciali-

dade de perda na produção leiteira.

(Retrieved 10 May 2012 from

www.inmet.gov.br/agrometeorologia/IndProdLeite15.php).



Macedo MCM. 2005. Pastagens no ecossistema Cerrados: Evo-

lução das pesquisas para o desenvolvimento sustentável.

Proceedings of the 42nd Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasi-

leira de Zootecnia. CD-ROM. SBZ (Sociedade Brasileira de

Zootecnia), Goiânia, GO, Brazil. p. 56−84.

Macedo MCM. 2010. Integração lavoura-pecuária-floresta: Al-

ternativa de agricultura conservacionista para os diferentes

biomas brasileiros. Proceedings of the 18th Reunião Brasi-

leira de Manejo e Conservação do Solo e da Água. Embrapa

Meio-Norte, Teresina, PI, Brazil.

Ofugi C; Magalhães LL; Melido RCN; Silveira VP. 2008. Inte-

gração lavoura-pecuária-floresta (ILPF), sistemas agro-

florestais (SAF’s). In: Trecenti R; Carvalho de Oliveira M;

Hass G, eds. Integração lavoura-pecuária-silvicultura. Bole-

tim técnico. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e

Abastecimento (MAPA), Brasília, DF, Brazil. p. 20−25.

Paciullo DSC; Castro CRT; Gomide CAM; Fernandes PB;

Rocha WSD; Müller MD; Rossiello ROP. 2010. Soil

bulk density and biomass partitioning of Brachiaria

decumbens in a silvopastoral system. Scientia Agricola

67:401−407.

Paciullo DSC; Castro CRT; Gomide CAM; Maurício RM; Piresa

MFA; Müller MD; Xavier DF. 2011. Performance of dairy

heifers in a silvopastoral system. Livestock Science

141:166−172.

Porfírio-da-Silva V; Baggio AJ. 2003. Como estabelecer com

sucesso uma Unidade de Referência Tecnológica em sistema

silvipastoril. Documentos No. 83. Embrapa Florestas, Co-

lombo, PR, Brazil.

Ribaski J; Radomski MI; Ribaski SAG. 2012. Potencialidade

dos sistemas silvipastoris para a produção animal sustentá-

vel no Brasil. Proceedings of the 1st Seminario Internacional

de Silvopastoreo. Universidad Nacional de Colombia,

Medellín, Colombia. p. 1−31.

Sano EE; Barcellos AO; Bezerra HS. 1999. Área e distribuição

espacial de pastagens cultivadas no cerrado brasileiro. Bole-

tim de Pesquisa No. 3. Embrapa Cerrados, Planaltina, DF,

Brazil.

Serrão EAS; Uhl C; Nepstad DC. 1993. Deforestation for pas-

ture in the humid tropics: Is it economically and environ-

mentally sound in the long term? Proceedings of the XVII

International Grassland Congress, Rockhampton, Australia

and Palmerston North, New Zealand. p. 2215−2221.

Teixeira LB; Simão Neto M; Teixeira Neto JF. 2000. Pesquisas

com pastagens cultivadas na Amazônia. In: Costa NA; Car-

valho LODM; Teixeira LB; Simão Neto M, eds. Pastagens

cultivadas na Amazônia. Embrapa Amazônia Oriental,

Belém, PA, Brazil. p. 17−35.

Zimmer AH; Almeida RG; Bungenstab DJ; Kichel AN. 2012.

Integração lavoura-pecuária-floresta no Brasil: Histórico e

perspectivas para o desenvolvimento sustentável. Procee-

dings of the 7th Congresso Latinoamericano de Sistemas

Agroflorestais para a Produção Pecuária Sustentável.

Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil. p.

666−670.

Zimmer AH; Euclides VPB. 2000. Importância das pastagens

para o futuro da pecuária de corte no Brasil. Proceedings of

the 1st Simpósio de Forragicultura e Pastagens. Universi-

dade Federal de Lavras, Lavras, MG, Brazil. p. 1−49.

© 2013

Tropical Grasslands−Forrajes Tropicales is an open-access journal published by Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). This work is

licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit





Technical challenges in evaluating southern China’s forage germplasm

resources

BAI CHANGJUN, LIU GUODAO, ZHANG YU, YU DAOGENG AND YAN LINLING

Tropical Crops Genetic Resources Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences (CATAS), Danzhou,

Hainan, People’s Republic of China. www.catas.cn/department/pzs

Keywords: Tropical and subtropical China, collection assessment, preservation, genetic resources utilization, grasses,

legumes.

Abstract

The present status of the collection, preservation and utilization of pasture germplasm in tropical and subtropical zones in

China is reviewed. The Tropical Pasture Research Centre (TPRC) of the Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sci-

ences (CATAS) has been engaged in this research since the 1940s. A low-temperature gene bank, an in-vitro plant library

and a nursery station have been established. In total, 5890 indigenous fodder accessions belonging to 478 species, 161

genera and 12 families have been surveyed and collected in South China; 1130 exotic accessions belonging to 87 species

and 42 genera of grasses and legumes have been introduced and are preserved. In the seed bank, 3769 accessions from 301

species, 127 genera and 12 families are maintained; in the form of in-vitro culture, 482 accessions belonging to 6 species, 6

genera and 3 families are preserved; and in the plant preservation nursery 388 accessions belonging to 10 species, 8 genera

and 3 families. A list of 12 forage legume and 9 grass cultivars released by CATAS during 1991-2011 is presented and

suggestions are made for developing and utilizing southern Chinese grassland germplasm resources.

Resumen

Se hace una revisión del estado de la colección, conservación y utilización del germoplasma de forrajes en las zonas tropi-

cal y subtropical de China. Desde la década de 1940, el Centro Tropical de Investigaciones en Pastos (TRC, por su sigla en

inglés) de la Academia China de Ciencias en Agricultura Tropical (CATAS, por su sigla en inglés) ha estado dedicado a las

investigaciones en pastos y forrajes tropicales y subtropicales. Se han establecido un banco de germoplasma para preserva-

ción de semillas a baja temperatura, facilidades para la preservación in vitro y facilidades para el mantenimiento de

colecciones vivas a nivel de invernadero y campo. En el Sur de China se han hecho exploraciones botánicas y se recolecta-

ron en total 5890 materiales forrajeros nativos pertenecientes a 478 especies, 161 géneros y 12 familias; además, 1130

accesiones exóticas pertenecientes a 87 especies y 42 géneros de gramíneas y leguminosas fueron introducidas y están

siendo preservadas. En el banco de semillas se están conservando 3769 accesiones de 301 especies, 127 géneros y 12 fami-

lias. La colección conservada en forma de cultivos in vitro comprende 482 accesiones pertenecientes a 6 especies, 6

géneros y 3 familias, y la de plantas vivas mantenidas en invernadero o campo comprende 388 accesiones pertenecientes a

10 especies, 8 géneros y 3 familias. Se presenta una lista con cultivares de 12 leguminosas y 9 gramíneas forrajeras libera-

das por CATAS durante 1991-2011 y se hacen algunas recomendaciones para el desarrollo y la utilización de los recursos

forrajeros en el Sur de China.

Introduction

China’s tropical and subtropical zones are located between

15° and 33° N and 100° and 125° E. The region has 121 M

people, 13% of the total population in China (Liu et al.

2008) and covers 260 Mha, including: the entire areas of

the Provinces of Guangdong, Hainan, Guangxi, Hunan and

Fujian; most parts of Yunnan, Guizhou, Jiangxi, Zhejiang

and Sichuan; the southern area of Hubei and Anhui; and

small districts of southeast Tibet and southwest Jiangsu ___________ Correspondence: Liu Guodao, Tropical Crops Genetic Resources

Institute, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences

(CATAS), Danzhou 571737, Hainan, People’s Republic of China.


Province. The tropical area accounts for 5% of the South

China zone, predominantly in the southern district of

Guangdong (Leizhou Peninsula) and all of Hainan Prov-

ince. Arable land occupies 28 Mha (10.7% of the region),

forests 90 Mha (34.6%) and grasslands 79 Mha (30.4%).

http://www.catas.cn/department/pzs

185 Bai Changjun, Liu Guodao, Zhang Yu, Yu Daogeng and Yan Linling


Tropical China is a warm climate area with plentiful

rainfall without an obvious winter and separate wet (gener-

ally May–October) and dry seasons. The range of average

annual rainfall in the region is 1200–2500 mm, the average

annual temperature 20–26 °C and the accumulated

temperature above 10 °C is 7900 degree days. It is more

mountainous in the northern and western areas, with up-

land and river plain topographies in the coastal areas of the

southeast. The mountainous and upland area covers more

than 30% of the region and is unsuitable for cash crops

except forage production. Forage plant resources are abun-

dant in cleared areas. The current status of vegetation is

secondary forest (coniferous, broad-leaf, shrubland and

coppiced forests), grassland and agricultural land. The

grasslands include savanna, shrubland, coppiced forest and

arable land sown with exotic legumes and grasses. Most of

the grasslands are distributed in small areas belonging to

smallholder farmers, with a potential for forage intercrop-

ping with cash crops, rubber and fruit tree plantations.

Most of the tropical and subtropical regions of South China

experience good climatic conditions with enough heat and

water to support good growth of forage plants. Despite the

degradation resulting from fire, overgrazing and cutting of

vegetation for fuel and organic matter input for cropland,

native plants with forage potential remain a valuable re-

source.

This paper reviews the scale of forage plant resources

in southern China and the programs to identify, evaluate

and utilize these forages, and concludes with a discussion

of current issues and possible solutions.

Surveys of tropical and subtropical forage genetic re-

sources

In the past 50 years, 6707 forage and feed plant species

belonging to 1545 genera in 246 families were surveyed.

During 1978–1990, the Chinese Academy of Agricultural

Science (CAAS) collected: 4125 species of natural forages

for possible cultivation and breeding, belonging to 879

genera within 127 families; 972 species from 173 grass

genera; and 646 species from 81 legume genera. The spe-

cies came from Hainan (1067), Guangdong (482), Yunnan

(698), Guizhou (1400), Sichuan (232), Jiangxi (733),

Anhui (255) and Hubei (931). In 1980, the National Grass-

land Survey identified more than 1000 species belonging

to 190 grass genera, and 791 species belonging to 120

legume genera on natural grassland areas of the 14 south-

ern provinces (Flora of Hainan 1979; Flora of Fujian 1995;

Flora of Yunnan 2003; Flora of Guangdong 2007).

In South China, there are 4680 known species with

forage potential (Table 1), mostly dicotyledons. The most

highly regarded potential forage plant resources in South

China include 687 species (“productive species” in Table

2), among them 364 grass species and 87 legume species.

Among these indigenous species, 354 species are endemic,

including 67 grass and 45 legume species; some are al-

ready used for livestock production (Wu 1961; Liu 2000).

The variable topography and climate in Hainan Island have

produced a very large number of tropical species within the

rich Chinese flora, composed of 25 000 species of higher

plants. CAAS first surveyed the indigenous forage plant

resources in 1983, and recorded 119 species (Li 2000; Shi

et al. 2008). Hainan provincial research units then sur-

veyed forage resources in 1986 and recorded 567 species.

Subsequently CATAS in Hainan recorded 1048 forage

plant species in 1993. During 2004–2009, a total of 242

species of grasses were investigated and details recorded,

including morphological characteristics, habitat and eco-

geographic distribution. Some of these forage germplasm

resources are species introduced from outside Hainan (Wu

1961; Flora of Fujian 1995; Liu 2000; Flora of Yunnan

2003; Flora of Guangdong 2007; Yin et al. 2008).

Forage germplasm resources exploitation is based

on collection and effective preservation as part of a long-

term strategy to identify, evaluate and utilize forages. So

far about 6000 forage germplasm samples have been

Table 1. Composition of indigenous plants with forage and feeding potential in South China.

Category Families

(No.)

Proportion of total

families (%)

Genera

(No.)

Proportion of total

genera (%)

Species

(No.)

Proportion of

total species

(%)

Ferns 14 5.3 31 2.3 46 1.0

Gymnosperms 8 3.1 16 1.2 63 1.4

Angiosperms 240 91.6 1303 96.2 4571 97.7

Dicotyledons 218 83.2 1068 79.1 3704 79.2

Monocotyledons 22 8.4 235 47.4 567 18.5

Total 262 100.0 1350 100.0 4680 100.0

Forage genetic resources in southern China 186


collected; most are preserved and only a limited number

have been evaluated for their forage potential. There are

still many other plant materials to be preserved and evalu-

ated. For example, it is reported that the indigenous forage

and feed plant resources in South China comprise 123

families (Table 2), but only 12 families have been col-

lected. According to the Floras of Hainan, Guangdong,

Guangxi and Fujian, there are 364 grass species in 92

genera, but only 38 species have been collected and pre-

served. Future work in South China will place more

emphasis on collecting rare and endangered populations

with forage potential, including those with pest and disease

resistance.

Table 2. Categories of potential forage and feeding resources in

South China.

Category of forage resource Families

(No.)

Genera

(No.)

Species

(No.)

Indigenous species 123 587 1432

Endemic species 85 128 354

Rare and endangered species 53 120 152

Productive species 25 243 687

Methodological aspects of collection, reproduction and

preservation

Collection and investigation

The collection of indigenous forage germplasm resources

includes 3 stages: finding and identifying forage genera

and species; recording ecological descriptors (local vegeta-

tion type, soils, topographical features and climatic data);

and passport data on location (latitude, longitude, elevation

and map reference), registration numbers, collector names

etc. The investigation of indigenous forage germplasm

uses 4 stages: field investigation, including visiting local

farmers; data descriptors of forages; planting in green-

house, reproduction, vegetative multiplication and pre-

liminary evaluation; and field investigations. The collec-

tion and investigation processes overlap. Identification of

sites for collection will sometimes be based on experience

or every 30–50 km along accessible roads or tracks. Col-

lectors aim to obtain mature seeds where possible, or else

tillers, stems, seedlings, tubers or other propagule material.

When exotic forage genetic resources are introduced, the

aims are to obtain similar levels of background information

and to maintain bio-security.

Reproduction

The number of seeds collected in the field is usually lim-

ited, so there is need to produce enough seeds for preser-

vation and further evaluation. Reproduction is done in the

greenhouse, shadehouse or in the field. Seeds are treated to

enhance germination, e.g. breaking hardseededness in

some groups. Some legumes and grasses are propagated

vegetatively.

Preservation

The storage of seeds is the most efficient way to preserve

tropical and subtropical forage germplasm resources. Seeds

are stored at low temperature, humidity and oxygen to

increase their longevity. Both long-term and short-term

storage are used at TPRC, CATAS. Long-term storage

uses -20 to -15 °C and relative humidity (RH) of 12–15%,

which should maintain seed viability for >25 years; short-

term storage uses 0–5 °C and RH 12–15% to keep seeds

for up to 5 years. Seeds are sealed in aluminium foil bags

containing ~15 000 seeds. Germination and moisture con-

tent of seeds are tested before storage and again every 3–5

years.

Current status of forage genetic resources evaluation

and preservation in South China

By 2006, the National Animal Husbandry and Veterinary

Service, Ministry of Agriculture, had evaluated national

forage germplasm resources preservation for more than 10

years. The national forage germplasm resources preserva-

tion system that was established includes a central gene

bank, 2 duplicate gene banks, 15 nurseries and 10 collabo-

ration teams from different ecosystem-regions in China.

The central seed bank of the state forage germplasm re-

sources center has collected, from 1998 to 2006, 9500

samples of forage germplasm resources from 1000 species,

411 genera and 67 families from all over the country. To

date, more than 18 000 accessions have been collected and

are preserved in the central gene bank, and the agronomic

characteristics of more than 12 000 accessions have been

described. The productivity of more than 1500 accessions

was evaluated. A total of 45 grasses and 28 legumes were

identified with good forage potential; 96 plant lines be-

came the basis for recent forage breeding.

Forage genetic resources have been under severe

threats resulting from: (1) natural factors, including envi-

ronmental and climate change, greenhouse effect, ozone

increase, fire, soil degradation and serious pollution; (2)

infrastructure development, land management and land use

changes, such as building of roads and railways, mining,

new industrial developments, urbanization, transformation

of forests or grasslands into cropland, cutting of vegetation

for fuel, overgrazing and other activities that destroy farm-

land; (3) scientific and technological innovation, including

the planting of new varieties, application of fertilizer and



mechanization of agriculture; and (4) the replacement of

old locally evolved varieties by introduced species, culti-

vars and agronomic practices (Jiang 1996; Li 2000; Zhang

et al. 2003; Wang et al. 2007; Zhao 2009). The TPRC at

CATAS assumed responsibility for the collection and

preservation of tropical and subtropical forage resources in

1940; 5890 indigenous accessions, belonging to 478 spe-

cies, 161 genera and 12 families, have been surveyed and

collected in Hainan, Guangdong, Guanxi, Fujian and South

Yunnan provinces.

Tropical areas account for only 5% of South China;

here, tropical indigenous plant resources are very limited.

To date cultivated forage varieties have come mostly from

4 centers of origin in the world (He 1986): The tropical

African savannas are the source of many cultivated

grasses, such as bluestem (Andropogon spp.), panic and

guinea grasses (Panicum spp.), pennisetum grass (Pennise-

tum spp.), bristlegrass (Setaria spp.) and brachiaria grasses

(Brachiaria spp.). Tropical America is the source of a

number of cultivated tropical grasses, such as carpet grass

(Axonopus spp.), paspalum (Paspalum spp.) and gama

grass (Tripsacum spp.), but is mainly the source of many

tropical cultivated forage legumes, such as stylo (Stylosan-

thes spp.), centro (Centrosema spp.), large-wing bean

(Macroptilium spp.), leucaena (Leucaena spp.) and calopo

(Calopogonium spp.). Tropical Africa is the source of

other cultivated legume varieties such as cowpea (Vigna

spp.), indigo (Indigofera spp.) and alysicarpus (Alysicarpus

spp.) (Liu 2000; Yu et al. 2006).

The introduction of tropical forages into China started

as early as the 1940s, when elephant grass (Pennisetum

purpureum) was first introduced from Southeast Asian

countries. In 1982 the NSW Department of Primary Indus-

tries, Australia introduced and tested a wide range of

tropical and subtropical grasses and legumes in Hainan

(Michalk et al. 1993a; 1993b) and Guangdong (Michalk

and Huang 1994a; 1994b). After that TPRC began to

gradually introduce forage genetic resources from the

International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the

Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

(ACIAR), the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation

(EMBRAPA) and others. Now, a total of 1130 exotic

accessions from 87 species and 42 genera, of which 12

genera are exotic, have been introduced and preserved

(Table 3).

In 2009, TPRC launched a project for the preservation

of tropical and subtropical forage germplasm resources. As

the leading unit in South China, it established a seed gene

library using low temperature preservation, an in-vitro

preservation library and a nursery station for plant propa-

gation. The seed copy bank of tropical and subtropical

forage germplasm resources has collected and is preserving

3769 accessions, the conservation library has 482 acces-

sions and the nursery station has 388 accessions (Table 4).

Table 3. Tropical and subtropical regional forage genetic resources in South China.

Family Genera

(No.)

Species

(No.)

Accessions

(No.)

Indigenous

species

(No.)

Indigenous

accessions

(No.)

Exotic

species

(No.)

Exotic

accessions

(No.)

Fabaceae 72 246 3390 210 2852 36 538

Poaceae 89 252 3078 224 2840 28 238

Compositae 3 3 7 3 7

Amaranthaceae 2 6 87 6 87

Euphorbiaceae 2 2 385 2 31 1 354

Malvaceae 1 1 2 1 2

Sapindaceae 1 1 9 1 9

Urticaceae 1 1 1 1 1

Cyperaceae 13 21 47 21 47

Convolvulaceae 1 1 1 1 1

Labiatae 1 1 1 1 1

Acanthaceae 1 1 1 1 1

Cruciferae 2 3 5 3 5

Polygonaceae 1 3 6 3 6

Total 190 542 7020 478 5890 651 1130

1A total of 87 species have been introduced and are preserved, of which 65 species are exotic and 23 species are both indigenous

and exotic, such as cassava (Manihot esculenta).



Table 4. Composition of tropical and subtropical forage genetic resources in different types of preservation at TPRC, CATAS.

Type of preservation Family Genera

(No.)

Species

(No.)

Accessions

(No.)

Low temperature preservation in genebank

Fabaceae

Poaceae

Compositae

Amaranthaceae

Sapindaceae

Convolvulaceae

Cruciferae

Polygonaceae

Cyperaceae

Labiatae

Acanthaceae

Malvaceae

Total

67

35

2

2

1

1

2

1

13

1

1

1

127

204

56

3

6

1

1

3

3

21

1

1

1

301

3161

443

7

87

9

1

5

6

47

1

1

1

3769

Preservation in vitro

Fabaceae

Poaceae

Euphorbiaceae

Total

4

1

1

6

4

1

1

6

21

61

400

482

Preservation in nursery

Fabaceae

Poaceae

Euphorbiaceae

Total

1

6

1

8

1

8

1

10

6

58

324

388

State of forage germplasm resources

The grass industry in South China has achieved productive

results in the cultivation and breeding of forage species

from introduced and native germplasm for grassland im-

provement, resistance to diseases and insect pests,

intercropping between fruit or forest trees, coastal dune

stabilization and utilization as livestock feed. In 1986, the

National Approval Committee for Pasturage Species held

its first meeting to approve forage species and by 2012,

453 cultivars had been registered, of which 120 cultivars

(50 legumes and 70 grasses) are suitable for southern

China (Liu et al. 2008). The TPRC at CATAS has succes-

sively selected, bred and released 19 cultivars (Table 5).

These varieties have been used across the southern and

southwest provinces in China. They are used not only for

grazing and producing high-quality hay and forage meal,

but also widely for green manure, young rubber tree gar-

dens, soil cover in orchards, conservation of soil and water,

fixing of coastal sand into soil, as well as environmental

greening and beautification, expanding the function and

role of tropical pasturage and bringing new concepts to the

development of the grass industry in South China.

Stylosanthes guianensis Reyan No. 2 has been planted

on over 2 Mha in Hainan, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hunan,

Jiangxi, Jiangsu, Yunnan, Guizhou, Sichuan, Fujian and

other regions. Pennisetum americanum (Wang grass Reyan

No. 4) has been planted over 10 Mha in Xinjiang, Beijing,

Hubei, southern China and the southwest, and is used as a

solution to the problem of shortage of winter feed in parts

of the northern region. The Fujian Agricultural and Scien-

tific Institution has bred and released productive cultivars

of Chamaecrista (syn. Cassia) rotundifolia and Brachiaria

hybrid No. 1. Due to their advantages, such as fast growth,

good soil cover, strong ability to fix nitrogen (in the case

of legumes), good pest and disease resistance and in-

creased nutritive value, they have obvious superiority in

the conservation of water and soil, and ecological and soil

fertility restoration. The Yunnan Research Centre for Beef

Cattle and Pasturage has released 7 cultivars (among them

Weichite Eastern Pennisetum, Haifa white clover, white

clover and Shafulei Kenya clover), which are planted over

8 Mha in Yunnan, Guizhou and neighboring areas.

The problems

The danger of losing tropical forage resources

The acknowledged degradation problems in Chinese grass-

land ecology are a major threat to the preservation of

indigenous forage species. With the rapid development of

the economy in South China, grassland, forest and range-

land areas have been considerably reduced in area and

what remains is under increased pressure to feed the large

189 Bai Changjun, Liu Guodao, Zhang Yu And Yu Daogeng


Table 5. Tropical forage varieties released by CATAS.

Cultivar Year of

release Extension area Adapted to

Leucaena leucocephala cv. Reyan No. 1 1991 Hainan, Yunnan poor soils, drought, waterlogging

Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Reyan No. 2 1991 Hainan, Yunnan poor acid soils, drought, waterlog-

ging

Brachiaria decumbens cv. Reyan No. 3 1991 Hainan, Guangdong poor soils, drought, waterlogging

Pennisetum americanum cv. Reyan No. 4 1998 All provinces of South

China

poor soils, drought, waterlogging

Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Reyan No. 5 1999 Hainan, Yunnan acid soils, cold

Brachiaria brizantha cv. Reyan No. 6 2000 Hainan, Yunnan poor soils, drought, waterlogging

Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Reyan No. 7 2001 Hainan, Yunnan resistance to disease

Panicum maximum cv. Reyan No. 8 2000 Hainan, Yunnan poor acid soils, drought, waterlog-

ging, shade

Panicum maximum cv. Reyan No. 9 2000 Hainan, Yunnan poor acid soils, drought, waterlog-

ging, shade

Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Reyan No. 10 2000 Hainan, Yunnan poor acid soils, drought, shade

Paspalum atratum cv. Reyan No. 11 2003 Hainan, Yunnan acid and poor soils

Arachis pintoi cv. Reyan No. 12 2004 Hainan, Yunnan poor acid soils, shade

Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Reyan No. 13 2003 Hainan, Yunnan drought, poor acid soils, resistance

to disease

Brachiaria dictyoneura cv. Reyan No. 14 2004 Hainan, Yunnan acid soils, shade

Brachiaria ruziziensis cv. Reyan No. 15 2005 Tropical area, average

rainfall >750 mm/yr

poor soils, drought

Desmodium ovalifolium cv. Reyan No. 16 2005 Tropical area, average

rainfall >1000 mm/yr

poor acid soils, shade, drought

Pueraria phaseoloides cv. Reyan No. 17 2006 Hainan, Yunnan shade, poor soils, drought, water-

logging

Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Reyan No. 18 2007 Hainan, Yunnan shade, poor soils, drought

Panicum maximum cv. Reyan No. 19 2007 Hainan, Yunnan shade, poor soils, drought, water-

logging

Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Reyan No. 20 2010 Hainan, Yunnan, Guang-

dong, Fujian, Guangxi

resistance to disease, tolerance to

acid soil, drought, shade

Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Reyan No. 21 2011 Hainan, Yunnan, Guang-

dong, South Fujian,

Guangxi, South Sichuan

low temperature, drought

population. Some varieties and genotypes of productive

forage species are disappearing as a result of these pres-

sures, threatening genetic diversity. Preservation practices

are by necessity a compromise, which means that only

some genotypes will be preserved. Field evaluation of

genotypes lags considerably behind the acquisition of

material, such that valuable genotypes may not be tested or

could be lost in storage. Genetic drift/loss is a real risk

with cross-pollinated species (Yan et al. 2008). A conse-

quence of these factors is that forage species do need to be

maintained in the wild and collections renewed at intervals.

The limited use of collections

The work on the identification and utilization of tropical

pasture germplasm has not been sufficient to thoroughly

appraise this resource and to maximize gains. There is still

only a general understanding of what ecotypes are in the

collections and a poorer understanding of any special traits

that may be there. Breeding work has been limited. The

cultivars released, while being an improvement on existing

material, are based only on limited selection, though it is

considered that the total resource is a rich one.

Limitations in preservation and preservation technology

The strategy adopted to collect and preserve material is

relatively standard and designed to handle larger amounts

of material with some efficiency. It has not been possible

to develop and use more innovative preservation tech-

niques, especially for those species that may have unusual

reproductive strategies. It is anticipated that techniques

such as asexual reproduction, tissue culture, cloning and

pollen storage, as well as advanced techniques for storing

app:ds:low

app:ds:temperature



DNA etc., will need to be developed and used to maintain

the collections and their genetic diversity (Yan et al. 2008).

These techniques would aim to speed up the identification

and utilization of improved material.

Barriers to the availability and usage of germplasm

Germplasm is a common good and arguably should belong

freely to the community, although opinions vary around

the world. Any benefits from exploiting these resources

should be available to the community – be it at the country,

provincial or local level. Intellectual property rights is, in

many places, an issue that is still to be resolved. By retain-

ing the rights of forage resources in public hands, there is

more chance for the wider community to benefit.

Suggestions

Strategies to survey, collect and introduce forage re-

sources

Any selection and breeding program needs to have signifi-

cant genetic diversity to maximize the chance of producing

good cultivars. Programs need to expand to include more

exotic material as well as local collections of the same

species.

Improvement in modification of genetic material

Research needs to identify those traits that significantly

enhance the quantity and quality of forage produced. A

range of techniques, including genetic engineering, then

need to be used to produce germplasm for testing and

eventual release.

Strengthen use of new cultivars with independent intellec-

tual property rights

There are few tropical forage cultivars with independent

intellectual property rights. This needs to be encouraged to

stimulate cultivar development.

Promote sharing of resources

Scientific progress depends upon the sharing of informa-

tion. Greater sharing of genetic material and collabo-ration

in breeding programs to generate more productive forage

cultivars would enhance the development of forage re-

sources in southern China. Appropriate protocols for

sharing material need to be developed.

References

Flora of Fujian. 1995. Science and Technology Commission of

Fujian Province. Fujian Science and Technology Press,

Fuzhou, PR China.

Flora of Guangdong. 2007. South China Botanical Garden,

Chinese Academy of Sciences. Guangdong Science and

Technology Press, Guangzhou, PR China.

Flora of Hainan. 1979. South China Institute of Botany, Chinese

Academy of Sciences. Science Press, Beijing, PR China.

Flora of Yunnan. 2003. Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese

Academy of Sciences. Science Press, Beijing, PR China.

He CZ. 1986. An introduction of technology on forage germ-

plasm resource research. Grassland and Turf 4:50−53.

Jiang YQ. 1996. The achievements and prospects of research on

forage germplasm resources in China. Journal of Northeast

Normal University 13:93−96.

Li XF. 2000. A thought of forage germplasm resource preserva-

tion and utilization. Grassland of China 5(2):74−75.

Liu GD. 2000 Flora of Hainan tropical forage. Chinese Agricul-

ture Press, Beijing, PR China.

Liu GD; Michalk DL; Bai CJ; Yu DG; Chen ZQ. 2008. Grass-

land development in tropical and subtropical southern

China. The Rangeland Journal 30:255−270.

Michalk DL; Fu NP; Zhu CM. 1993a. Improvement of dry

tropical rangelands in Hainan Island, China: 1. Evaluation of

pasture legumes. Journal of Range Management 46:

331−339.

Michalk DL; Fu NP; Zhu CM. 1993b. Improvement of dry

tropical rangelands in Hainan Island, China: 2. Evaluation of

pasture grasses. Journal of Range Management 46:339−345

Michalk DL; Huang ZK. 1994a. Grassland improvement in

subtropical Guangdong Province, China: 1. Evaluation of

pasture legumes. Tropical Grasslands 28:129−138.

Michalk DL; Huang ZK. 1994b. Grassland improvement in

subtropical Guangdong Province, China: 2. Evaluation of

pasture grasses. Tropical Grasslands 28:139−145.

Shi WG; Li ZY; Wang YQ. 2008. Documentation concordance

and share of forage germplasm resources. Journal of Plant

Genetic Resources 9:561−565.

Wang TM; Zhang JN; Lu XS. 2007. Development strategies of

forage germplasm resources in China. Chinese Journal of

Grassland 129(13):104−108.

Wu ZY. 1961. Flora of China. Editorial Committee of the Chi-

nese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, PR China.

Yan XB; Wang CZ; Guo YX. 2008. Storage, utilization and

conservation of forage germplasm in China. Pratacultural

Science 25(12):85−91.

Yin J; Sun Z; Wei Q. 2008. Current status and prospect of forage

germplasm resources in Yunnan province. Pratacultural Sci-

ence 25(10):88−94.

Yu DG; Liu GD; Bai CJ. 2006. A survey on indigenous fodder

germplasm and study on indigenous fodder development and

utilization. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin 122:

416−420.



Zhang JY; Yuan QH; Zhang WS. 2003. The advances in study

on forage germplasm resources and its genetic diversity in

China. Grassland of China 8(2):59−65.

Zhao LX. 2009. The potentiality and countermeasures of collec-

tion, valuation and utilization of excellent forage germplasm

resources in China. Acta Agrestia Sinica 1:413−419.

© 2013







Current status of Stylosanthes seed production in southern India NAGARATNA BIRADAR

1, VINOD KUMAR

1 AND B.V. RAJANIKANT

2

1Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Southern Regional Research Station, Dharwad, India. www.igfri.res.in

2University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agricultural Extension Education, Dharwad, India. www.uasd.edu

Keywords: Stylo seed crop, seed producers, stylo seed production area, cost-benefit, Anantapur.

Abstract

India is a significant producer of seed of Stylosanthes spp. (stylo), mainly S. hamata. Most of this seed is produced by

villagers and small farmers in the Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh, southern India. This is one of the poorest

regions in the State, with harsh climatic conditions, poor, zinc-deficient soils, and, in the stylo seed production area,

farm sizes averaging less than 2 ha. An informal network of seed traders markets the stylo seed within a 25−30 km

radius and, via the next level of traders, to other parts of India. A survey in this area in 2002/03 indicated that stylo

seed production in 2001 was about 800 t from more than 400 ha. A second survey, conducted in 2012, showed that the

stylo seed production area had declined to 150 ha, with annual seed production of about 300 t. Most of the decline had

occurred since 2007, when the purchase of seed for watershed rehabilitation in the States of Karnataka and Andhra

Pradesh was discontinued. In addition to the loss of this major market, other factors influencing the reduction in stylo

seed production included: the low price of stylo seed compared with groundnut (the crop mainly competing for land

use); sales of land for other purposes, and diversion of one area as a Special Economic Zone; reduced availability and

increased costs of labor, particularly after the establishment in 2005 of the National Rural Employment Guarantee

Agency, which provided an attractive employment option for rural workers; lack of technical support; and, in one vil-

lage, delay in payment. Poor seed quality was another issue constraining prices. Despite these challenges, many farm-

ers in the region remain positive and would continue to produce stylo seed, if profitability could be improved.

Resumen

India es un importante productor de semilla de stylo (Stylosanthes spp.), principalmente S. hamata. La mayor parte de

esta semilla es producida por aldeanos y campesinos en el distrito de Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh, en el sur de India.

Ésta es una de las regiones más pobres del estado, con condiciones climáticas adversas, suelos pobres y deficientes en

zinc. En las áreas productoras de semilla de stylo, las fincas miden en promedio menos de 2 ha. Una red informal de

comerciantes vende la semilla dentro de un radio de 25−30 km y, por medio del siguiente nivel de comerciantes, a

otras partes de India. Una encuesta realizada en 2002/03 indica que en 2001 se produjeron en esta área alrededor de

800 t de semilla de stylo en más de 400 ha. Una segunda encuesta, realizada en 2012, mostró que el área de producción

había disminuido a 150 ha, con una producción anual de semilla de aproximadamente 300 t. La mayor disminución

ocurrió a partir de 2007, cuando se suspendió la compra de semilla para la rehabilitación de cuencas de ríos en los es-

tados Kamataka y Andhra Pradesh. Adicional a la pérdida de este mercado mayor, otros factores que influyeron en esta

reducción fueron: el bajo precio de la semilla comparado con el de maní (cacahuete), el cultivo de mayor competitivi-

dad por el uso de la tierra; la venta de tierra para otros propósitos, incluyendo la declaración de una área como Zona

Económica Especial; la reducción de la disponibilidad de la mano de obra y el incremento de su costo, particularmente

después de que en 2005 se estableciera la National Rural Employment Guarantee Agency, la cual otorgó una opción

atractiva de empleo para trabajadores rurales; la falta de apoyo técnico; y, en una aldea, el retraso en el pago por la

venta de semilla. La baja calidad de la semilla también afectó los precios. A pesar de estos retos, muchos campesinos

en la región mantienen una actitud positiva y continuarían produciendo semilla de stylo si la rentabilidad pudiera ser

mejorada.

___________

Correspondence: Nagaratna Biradar, Indian Grassland and Fodder

Research Institute (IGFRI), Southern Regional Research Station,

Dharwad-580 005, Karnataka, India.


http://www.uasd.edu/


193 N. Biradar, V. Kumar and B.V. Rajanikant


Introduction

Land degradation and associated poverty are major chal-

lenges in rural areas of India with wastelands amounting

to 114 Mha or almost 36% of the land area (ICAR

2010). Various policies and programs have been de-

vised, mainly through 5-year plans, to address the issue.

The significant boost for wastelands through watershed

programs was given in the IX Plan (1997/98−2001/02).

Watershed development, as a poverty-alleviation meas-

ure, has been given a high priority in India, as is evident

in the 20-year Perspective Plan (2002/03−2021/22) for

treating around 88.5 Mha in the next 20 years with a to-

tal investment of Rs 727.5 billion.

India has 15% of the global livestock population but

only 2% of the land area. Restoration of degraded lands

is also aimed to meet grazing requirements of livestock

and wildlife in some areas (Ramesh et al. 2007).

Stylosanthes spp. (stylo), pioneering colonizers, establish

well on poor and severely eroded soils in dryland condi-

tions. Their ability to improve soil bulk density, infiltra-

tion rate and water holding capacity makes them useful

species for the conservation, stabilization and sustaina-

ble development of land and water resources (de Leeuw

et al. 1994). There is a large demand in India for stylo

seed, particularly S. hamata, a short-lived perennial leg-

ume which has perceived perenniality in this part due to

self-seeding. Only a small portion of this demand is met

by public sector-operated centers for forage crops; most

demand is met by farmers of Anantapur district

(13°−14° S, 76°−77° E) in southern India, who sow a

S. hamata crop once in 3−4 years and produce seed.

Initially, in the mid-1970s, production of stylo seed

by farmers in this region was aided by international pilot

seed programs, in which seeds were produced by small

and marginal farmers of this district. Some of these

farmers later converted into producers-cum-traders.

Eventually an informal network of seed producers and

traders emerged and grew in scale and extent. Stylo

seeds produced in this region today reach even the re-

motest parts of the country. A survey in this area in

2002/03 indicated that stylo (S. hamata) seed production

(SSP) in 2001 was about 800 t from more than 400 ha

(Rao et al. 2004). A similar survey was taken in 2012

to quantify current seed production and to examine the

factors underlying the continuity (or otherwise) of pro-

duction of stylo seed by the farmers of the area.

Methods

Anantapur is one of the most economically backward

districts of Andhra Pradesh province of India (Figure 1).

The average annual rainfall of the district is only 550

mm and, on average, 1 year in 3 years is a drought year.

This district is divided into 3 revenue divisions, and

most of the stylo seed is produced in the Penukonda di-

vision within the Gorantla, Somandapalli and

Chilmathur revenue blocks, where stylo is cultivated

extensively. The survey was undertaken in these revenue

blocks. A preliminary list of villages, where stylo seed is

being produced at present, was prepared by consulting

with field staff of the AHVS Department and, as in the

previous (2002/03) survey, many such villages were in

the Gorantla block with a few in the Somandapalli and

Chilamathur blocks. Our primary surveys therefore cov-

ered the Gorantla block extensively, and a few villages

in the other 2 blocks. In total, the study covered 17 vil-

lages of which 10 villages were common to the 2002/03

and 2012 surveys.

The stylo seed crop is ready for harvest in January,

when farmers are relatively free from other rabi-season

farm operations. Therefore in January 2012, we carried

out primary surveys, interviews and consultations with a

cross-section of people, and detailed discussions with

key informants and seed traders at 2 levels (village and

revenue block). Separate checklists for seed growers and

traders were prepared to guide the discussions in the

field. Village surveys, however, formed an important

part of the study to understand what was happening at

farmer and village levels.

Figure 1. Map showing the study area.

India

Andhra Pradesh

Stylosanthes seed production in southern India 194


Results

Estimated area under stylo seed crop in surveyed

villages and reasons for decrease in the area

In almost all villages, the area under stylo had declined

since the previous survey (Figure 2). The area had de-

clined drastically in some villages, where only a few

larger farmers, who were growers as well as seed traders,

had continued to cultivate the crop. Farmers indicated

that the steep fall in the area under stylo had occurred

only after 2007, when demand for seed had decreased.

This information from farmers was consistent with the

banning of purchase of stylo seeds by Karnataka and

Andhra Pradesh State Governments at that time, due to

extreme adulteration and impurity of seeds sold by last-

level middlemen. Except in a few villages, the majority

of the small and marginal farmers had replaced the crop

with groundnut, the traditional oilseed crop in this area.

The landholdings of farmers in this dry tract are very

small, and complete replacement of the stylo crop was

observed in many cases. As prices of agricultural com-

modities including groundnut in India had increased,

especially in this decade, SSP farmers reverted back to

groundnut cultivation. Palasamudram, the village with the greatest area un-

der stylo (160 ha) in 2002/2003, had only10 ha under

SSP in 2012, and this area belonged to larger farmers

who were also traders of the stylo seed. Small and mar-

ginal farmers had discontinued stylo cultivation. The

Government of Andhra Pradesh has earmarked 392 ha of

land for a Special Economic Zone in this village, and

153.75 ha or 39% was owned by farmers who had previ-

ously cultivated stylo. This was a pioneering village for

SSP, and some farmers from this village had been

trained in SSP at government farms (Rao et al. 2004).

Edula Ballapuram is another village where the area un-

der stylo had been reduced remarkably, from 44 ha to 10

ha. The prime reason, expressed by the farmers of this

village for discontinuing SSP, was undue delay in re-

ceipt of payment. This reason was specific to this vil-

lage; in other villages payment was not a problem. The

village seed trader, when consulted, however, mentioned

that the problem of non-availability of labor had affected

the crop. This trader had a stylo seed stock of 150 kg.

Interestingly, in Guttivarapalli village there was no stylo

cultivation in 2010, whereas some families resumed the

cultivation of stylo in 2011 on a total area of 3.24 ha.

Some farmers said that they might resume cultivation

of stylo, if prices for seed increased and if it proved

more profitable than regular field crops. Cost of labor

had increased 3-fold since 2002 but the price of stylo

seed had remained constant. Non-availability of labor

was another reason mentioned, as labor requirements for

harvesting and further processing of seed are high. These

operations must be carried out in the months of January

Figure 2. Area under SSP in surveyed villages (figure based on log transformed data to the base 10 with s.e. bars).

-0.15

0.35

0.85

1.35

1.85

2.35

Palasam

ud

ram

Pulag

urlap

alli

Brah

man

apalli

Ed

ula B

allapuram

Vad

agep

alli

Bud

dap

alli

Go

llapalli

Dev

alaceruvap

alli

Mallap

alli

Tam

man

ayanap

alli

Guttiv

arapalli

Red

dych

eruvap

alli

Kag

anap

alli

Mo

rum

palli

Rag

imak

alapalli

Bo

vilap

alli

Tav

vin

epalli

SSP area (ha) 2012 SSP area (ha) 2002

195 N. Biradar, V. Kumar and B.V. Rajanikant


to March, when temperatures are high. Many laborers

are reluctant to work under hot conditions, and would

prefer to work elsewhere, especially as work opportuni-

ties have increased in the last 10 years. Many of the vil-

lages (Pulagurlapalli, Brahmanapalli, Reddy-Cheruva-

palli etc.) are located adjacent to the Bangalore

−Hyderabad national highway (NH-7). The completion

of the Bangalore international airport at Devanahalli,

less than 70 km away, had inflated land prices and many

small and marginal farmers sold their land. Increased

land prices and sale of land to private buyers or the gov-

ernment applied also to some of the stylo-growing vil-

lages located in the interior. In some of the interior vil-

lages, e.g. Ragimakalapalli, private seed companies had

purchased large areas to establish seed-production cen-

ters and market the seeds from Bangalore to other parts

of the country.

Cost of cultivation of stylo crop

Cost-benefit analysis (Table 1) of stylo seed production

indicated that input costs had increased substantially in

the last 10 years. The major component was cost of la-

bor, which had almost tripled during the decade. There

were many reasons for increased wages, the most im-

portant being the implementation of a National Rural

Employment Guarantee scheme in 2005. Seed yield,

fodder yield and the selling price of the seed did not

show similar increases, but instead remained almost con-

stant for a decade. As a result, the returns from the culti-

vation of stylo were reduced drastically; the B:C ratio

decreased from 2.90 to 1.48, making it less remunerative

for the farmers.

Seed demand, price and purity

There is an informal market for stylo seed, largely oper-

ated by the vast network of middlemen. No specific

method exists for fixing the price or checking seed quali-

ty. The demand for stylo seed varies both from year to

year and within a year. Lack of information on seed

demand at the level of the village seed traders weakens

their bargaining power on price, except to agree to the

price offered. This results in the selling of spurious seeds

by farmers and traders. Seed lots collected from various

sources and places in the surveyed villages clearly indi-

cated large scale admixtures, and average purity was

only 28%. Truthfully-labelled stylo seed samples from

public research farms have recorded 81% pure seed

content. There is no specific method in place to assess

seed demand, to fix the price or to check seed quality,

thus favoring only the few big traders in the business.

Rao et al. (2004) reported non-availability of data on the

actual quantities of stylo seed purchased by various

users.

Conclusion

The area under stylo in the region has declined consider-

ably. Important reasons include non-availability of labor,

increased wage rates and an almost constant price for

stylo seed during the last decade. Mechanization of seed

harvesting and processing in the area would reduce the

dependence on labor. A system involving trusted agen-

cies in the area is required to assess seed demand and to

check the quality of seed in order to get a fair price. A

reduction in labor usage combined with a fair price for

seed could revive the ailing stylo seed production indus-

try in the area, bringing greater stability to the livelihood

of small and marginal farmers in this semi-arid area.

Table 1. Cost-benefit analysis of stylo seed production.

Factor 2012

(Rs/ha)

2002

(Rs/ha)

Input variable costs

Seed1 0 0

Human labor 15 000 6000

Bullock labor/Machine labor 3250 1250

Farm yard manure 3000 1500

Inorganic fertilizer 2315 1437.5

Interest on working expense 942.5 407.5

Fixed costs

Land rent2 7500 3750

Land revenue 0 0

Total costs 32 007.5 14 345

Output

Seed yield (kg/ha)3 2000 2000

Price of seed (Rs/kg)4 18 18

Fodder yield (kg DM/ha) 2250 2250

Price of fodder (Rs/kg) 5 2.5

Gross returns 47 250 41 625

Net returns 15 242.5 27 280

Input:output ratio 1.48 2.90 1Fallen seeds germinate and give good crop stands, so cost of

seed is considered zero. 2Cost imputed for owned land rent Rs 7500/ha. The Govern-

ment of Andhra Pradesh does not levy any land revenue. 3Minimum seed yield, according to farmers; maximum about

4 000 kg; however, seed lot had high level of inert material

(>50%). 4Relative price received by farmers over last 4 years.

Stylosanthes seed production in southern India 196


Acknowledgments

We thank: Drs SA Faruqui, DR Malaviya and BG

Shivakumar for considering our study request favorably

and for extending required resources; Drs Bob Clements

and Michael Peters for encouraging us to re-survey the

stylo seed production area; and those farmers and traders

of the study area who spent their time and shared their

information with the team.

References

de Leeuw PN; Mohamed Saleem MA; Nyamu AM, eds. 1994.

Stylosanthes as forage and fallow crop. ILCA (Internation-

al Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research ). 2010. De-

graded and wastelands of India − status and spatial distri-

bution. ICAR Directorate of Information and Publication in

Agriculture, New Delhi, India.

Ramesh CR; Bhag Mal; Hazra CR; Sukanya DH; Rama-

murthy V; Chakraborty S. 1997. Status of Stylosanthes in

other countries. III. Stylosanthes development and utilisa-

tion in India. Tropical Grasslands 31:467−475.

Rao PP; Ramesh CR; Pathak PS; Rao YM; Biradar N. 2004.

Recent trends in Stylosanthes seed production by small-

holders in India. In: Chakraborty S, ed. High-yielding

anthracnose-resistant Stylosanthes for agricultural systems.

ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural

Research), Canberra, Australia. ACIAR Monograph No.

111. p. 235−242.

© 2013








Advances in improving tolerance to waterlogging in Brachiaria

grasses

JUAN A. CARDOSO1, JUAN JIMÉNEZ

1, JOISSE RINCÓN

1, EDWARD GUEVARA

1, REIN VAN DER HOEK

1,

ANDY JARVIS1, MICHAEL PETERS

1, JOHN MILES

1, MIGUEL AYARZA

2, SOCORRO CAJAS

2, ÁLVARO

RINCÓN2, HENRY MATEUS

2, JAIME QUICENO

2, WILSON BARRAGÁN

2, CARLOS LASCANO

2, PEDRO

ARGEL2, MARTÍN MENA

3, LUIS HERTENTAINS

4 AND IDUPULAPATI RAO

1


2Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria (Corpoica), Colombia. www.corpoica.org.co

3Instituto Nicaragüense de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Nicaragua. www.inta.gob.ni

4Instituto de Investigación Agropecuaria de Panamá (IDIAP), Panama. www.idiap.gob.pa

Keywords: Tropical grasses, poor soil drainage, root aeration traits, screening, participatory evaluation.

Abstract

An inter-institutional and multi-disciplinary project to identify Brachiaria genotypes, which combine waterlogging

tolerance with high forage yield and quality, for use in agricultural land in Latin America with poor drainage, is un-

derway. The aim is to improve meat and milk production and mitigate the impacts of climate change in the humid

areas of Latin America. Researchers at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) have developed a

screening method to evaluate waterlogging in grasses. Using this method, 71 promising hybrids derived from the spe-

cies, Brachiaria ruziziensis, B. brizantha and B. decumbens, were evaluated. Four hybrids with superior waterlogging

tolerance were identified. Their superiority was based on greater: green-leaf biomass production, proportion of green

leaf to total leaf biomass, green-leaf area, leaf chlorophyll content and photosynthetic efficiency; and reduced dead-

leaf biomass. These hybrids, together with previously selected hybrids and germplasm accessions, are being field-

tested for waterlogging tolerance in collaboration with National Agricultural Research Institutions and farmers from

Colombia, Nicaragua and Panama.

Resumen

Un proyecto inter-institucional y multidisciplinario para identificar genotipos de Brachiaria que combinen tolerancia a

suelos encharcados con un alto rendimiento y calidad de forraje para uso en áreas agrícolas con mal drenaje está en

curso. El objetivo es mejorar la producción de carne y leche y mitigar los impactos del cambio climático en las áreas

húmedas de América Latina. Para el efecto, investigadores del Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)

han desarrollado un método de invernadero para evaluar tolerancia a encharcamiento en gramíneas el cual se aplicó en

71 híbridos promisorios originados de las especies Brachiaria ruziziensis, B. brizantha y B. decumbens. Se identifica-

ron 4 híbridos superiores por su tolerancia a encharcamiento, caracterizados por mayor producción de biomasa de

hojas, proporción de hojas verdes con respecto al total de hojas, área foliar, contenido de clorofila, eficiencia fotosinté-

tica y menor biomasa de hojas muertas. Estos híbridos, junto a otros híbridos y accesiones de germoplasma previamen-

te seleccionados, están siendo evaluados bajo condiciones de campo por su tolerancia a encharcamiento en colabora-

ción con instituciones nacionales de investigación agrícola y productores de Colombia, Nicaragua y Panamá.

Introduction

The frequency of extreme weather events, including

heavy precipitation, will likely increase in the future due

___________ Correspondence: Idupulapati Rao, Centro Internacional de Agricul-

tura Tropical (CIAT), Apartado Aéreo 6713, Cali, Colombia.


to climate change (Allan and Soden 2008; O’Gorman

and Schneider 2009). Poorly drained soils are found in

about 11.3% of agricultural land in Latin America where

physiography promotes flooding, high groundwater ta-

bles or waterlogging (Wood et al. 2000). Waterlogging

drastically reduces oxygen diffusion into the soil causing

http://www.corpoica.org.co/


198 J.A. Cardoso et al.


hypoxia, which is the main limitation reducing root

aerobic respiration and the absorption of minerals and

water (Rao et al. 2011). Plants adapt to waterlogging

conditions with traits and mechanisms that improve root

aeration, such as production of aerenchyma and devel-

opment of adventitious roots (Jackson and Colmer

2005).

Perennial Brachiaria grasses are the most widely

sown forage grasses in tropical America (Miles et al.

2004; Valle and Pagliarini 2009). During the rainy sea-

son, in a large number of locations in the tropics,

Brachiaria pastures are temporarily exposed to water-

logging conditions that severely limit pasture productivi-

ty and therefore livestock production (Rao et al. 2011).

In many humid zones, livestock producers use B.

humidicola cv. Tully because of its high tolerance to wa-

terlogging. However, a major limitation of this cultivar

is its low forage quality, which constrains animal per-

formance.

CIAT has an on-going Brachiaria breeding program.

Two selections from this program have been commer-

cialized (cvv. Mulato and Mulato II). They have a num-

ber of positive attributes, but are not tolerant of water-

logging. The most economic way to reduce the negative

impact of waterlogging may be to select or breed tolerant

cultivars (Zhou 2010). Improving waterlogging tolerance

in Brachiaria grasses has potential for success, since

inter- and intraspecific variation has been documented

(Rao et al. 2011). Therefore, the main objective of an

inter-institutional and multi-disciplinary project was to

identify genotypes of Brachiaria that combine waterlog-

ging tolerance with high forage quality for improving

meat and milk production and mitigate the impacts of

climate change in humid areas of tropical Latin America.

Progress

The project aims to deliver 4 major outputs; progress

towards those research outputs is described below.

Estimation of areas in Latin America with poorly drain-

ed soils to target improved Brachiaria grasses

Areas in tropical Latin America suitable for Brachiaria

grasses based on soil conditions and precipitation are

shown in Figure 1. Based on global climate models

(GCM-ECHAM), areas in Latin America are expected to

experience more days of waterlogged soils by 2020,

without any major further changes by 2050 (Figure 1).

This includes grasslands such as the Colombian and

Venezuelan Llanos, the Guyana savannas and the Brazil-

ian Cerrados.

Traits associated with waterlogging tolerance in

Brachiaria grasses

Definition of morpho-physiological and biochemical

traits associated with waterlogging tolerance will con-

tribute to developing reliable screening procedures.

Moreover, efficient screening procedures are required to

recover the desirable traits through accumulation of fa-

vorable alleles over repeated cycles of selection and re-

combination (Rao 2001; Wenzl et al. 2006). Work has

been carried out at CIAT to assess the responses of

Brachiaria genotypes with different levels of tolerance

to waterlogging (tolerant B. humidicola cvv. Tully and

Llanero; moderately tolerant B. decumbens cv. Basilisk

and B. brizantha cv. Toledo; sensitive B. brizantha cv.

Marandu, Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato II and

Figure 1. Estimated present areas (6 300 000 km

2) suitable for growing Brachiaria grasses in tropical Latin America and number

of days of water-saturated soils during the year: at present and expected changes for the years 2020 and 2050.

Waterlogging tolerance in Brachiaria 199


B. ruziziensis Br 44-02). Short-term (<3 days) adaptation

to hypoxic/waterlogged soil conditions involves a switch

from aerobic respiration to fermentative catabolism in

roots. However, longer-term adaptation is achieved by

the development of aerenchyma in roots that allows oxy-

gen transfer to improve aerobic respiration. Differences

in tolerance to waterlogging among Brachiaria grasses

are likely a consequence of differences in morphology

and anatomy of roots, including aerenchyma formation,

root diameter, relative volume of stele (vascular tissue)

(Figure 2) and lateral root formation, all of these acting

synergistically to improve root aeration and sustain root

elongation. Presence of constitutive aerenchyma in roots

is of immediate advantage to plants when initially ex-

posed to oxygen shortage (Colmer and Voesenek 2009).

This may explain the superior tolerance of B. humidicola

cv. Tully to temporary waterlogging. Maximum rooting

depth has been found to be positively associated with

aerenchyma development at 1 cm from the root tip in

commercial Brachiaria grasses (r = 0.4; P<0.05). As

determination of aerenchyma in roots is a time-consum-

ing process, maximum rooting depth could be a more

efficient indicator of internal aeration efficiency.

Screening for waterlogging tolerance

Researchers at CIAT have developed a screening method

based on morphological and physiological traits to eval-

uate waterlogging tolerance in Brachiaria grasses.

Screening is carried out using soil (from target environ-

ments) in a double-pot system with a plastic bag to pre-

vent water leakage, while maintaining a water lamina of

3 cm over the soil for 21 days. Using this method, a

large number of germplasm accessions and hybrids have

been evaluated under 2 fertility levels: high (mg element

per kg of soil: N 40, P 50, K 100, Ca 101, Mg 35, S 28,

Zn 2, Cu 2, B 0.1, Mo 0.1) and low (P 20, K 20, Ca 47,

Mg 14, S 10) (Rao et al. 1992) (Table1). Some of these

hybrids have shown higher level of tolerance to water-

logged soil than commercial cultivars based on higher

values of leaf chlorophyll (SPAD chlorophyll meter

reading units: SCMR) and the proportion of green- leaf

biomass to total leaf biomass (Figure 3).

A set of 71 Brachiaria hybrids (Brachiaria

ruziziensis x B. brizantha x B. decumbens) was evaluat-

ed at CIAT for tolerance to waterlogging using the same

screening method; 4 hybrids were superior to the others

(Rincón et al. 2008). The superior performance of these

hybrids was based on greater green-leaf biomass produc-

tion, greater proportion of green-leaf to total leaf bio-

mass, greater green-leaf area, leaf chlorophyll content

and photosynthetic efficiency, and lower levels of dead-

leaf biomass. These 4 hybrids together with 7 other

Brachiaria hybrids and 19 germplasm accessions of B.

humidicola are being evaluated under field conditions

for tolerance to waterlogging with participation of Na-

tional Agricultural Research Institutions and farmers in

Colombia, Nicaragua and Panama.

Figure 2. Root cross sections of 2 contrasting Brachiaria grasses (tolerant B. humidicola and sensitive B. ruziziensis) grown under

drained or waterlogged soil conditions for 21 days. Sections taken at 10 cm from the root tip. * represents aerenchyma. Scale bar =

0.5 mm.

Table 1. Brachiaria grasses evaluated (2010) for waterlogging tolerance under controlled conditions at CIAT.

B. humidicola Interspecific Brachiaria hybrids

(B. ruziziensis x B. brizantha x B. decumbens)

High fertility Low fertility High fertility Low fertility

66 accessions

492 hybrids

66 accessions 902 hybrids 109 hybrids

200 J.A. Cardoso et al.


Figure 3. Genotypic variation for waterlogging tolerance in

26 Brachiaria hybrids and 4 commercial cultivars (B.

humidicola cvv. Tully and Llanero; B. brizantha cv. Marandu;

and Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato II) grown in pots for 21

days in a fertilized top soil (Oxisol) from A (Santander de

Quilichao, Department of Cauca, Colombia) and B (Matazul,

Department of Meta, Colombia). SCMR: SPAD chlorophyll

meter reading units; green-leaf biomass proportion: proportion

of green to total leaf biomass.

Field evaluation of Brachiaria grasses

Researchers from CIAT and Corpoica (Colombia) have

developed a methodology to evaluate waterlogging tol-

erance in Brachiaria grasses under field conditions (Fig-

ure 4). This methodology is being used by researchers

from INTA (Nicaragua) and IDIAP (Panama). Selected

Brachiaria grasses (11 Brachiaria hybrids, 19 B. humi-

dicola accessions and B. brizantha cv. Toledo) are being

evaluated under field conditions at 3 sites in Colombia, 2

in Nicaragua and 1 in Panama. As expected, B.

humidicola accessions are showing better tolerance to

waterlogged soil conditions than the hybrids.

Researchers in Colombia, Nicaragua and Panama

have also conducted interviews with livestock producers

to make a quick assessment of their perceptions of prob-

lems associated with excess water in the rainy season

and desirable characteristics needed in new cultivars to

confront climate variability and change. Farmers associ-

ated waterlogging tolerance in grasses with a

stoloniferous growth habit and indicated the need to im-

prove pest and disease resistance in new cultivars target-

ed to poorly drained soils. Agronomic evaluation of

promising Brachiaria genotypes with participation of

farmers is in progress.

Conclusions

Progress with estimating areas of Latin America with

poorly drained soils and using climate models to

estimate the possible increase in waterlogged areas

has highlighted the significant impact on pasture

and animal production that climate change could have by

the years 2020 and 2050. The identification of some

Figure 4. Methodology to evaluate Brachiaria grasses for tolerance to waterlogged soils under field conditions. Evaluations are

carried out at monthly intervals and include determination of various parameters, such as dry matter yield, forage cover, height,

visual appraisal and presence of pests and diseases.

SC

MR

S

CM

R

− +

Green leaf biomass proportion

Green leaf biomass proportion

Waterlogging tolerance in Brachiaria 201


Brachiaria genotypes with improved tolerance to water-

logging suggests that there are ways to minimize this

impact. The field-testing in Colombia, Nicaragua and

Panama should indicate how well these genotypes might

achieve this aim. Further screening is needed to identify

more potential genetic material to combat the increase in

waterlogging which will inevitably occur with climate

change.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the Fontagro-

funded project: “Development of Brachiaria genotypes

adapted to poor soil drainage to increase cattle produc-

tion and adapt grazing systems to climate change in Lat-

in America”.

References

Allan RP; Soden BJ. 2008. Atmospheric warming and the

amplification of precipitation extremes. Science 321:

481−1484.

Colmer TD; Voesenek LACJ. 2009. Flooding tolerance: Suites

of plant traits in variable environments. Functional Plant

Biology 36:665−681.

Jackson MB; Colmer TD. 2005. Response and adaptation by

plants to flooding stress. Annals of Botany 96:501−505.

Miles JW; Valle CB; Rao IM; Euclides VPB. 2004.

Brachiariagrasses. In: Moser L; Burson L; Sollenberger

LE, eds. Warm-season grasses. ASA-CSSA-SSSA,

Madison, WI, USA. p. 745−783.

O’Gorman PA; Schneider T. 2009. The physical basis for in-

creases in precipitation extremes in simulations of 21st-

century climate change. Proceedings of the National


106:14773−14777.

Rao IM. 2001. Role of physiology in improving crop adapta-

tion to abiotic stresses in the tropics: The case of common

bean and tropical forages. In: Pessarakli M, ed. Handbook

of plant and crop physiology. Marcel Decker, New York,

USA. p. 583−613.

Rao IM; Roca WM; Ayarza MA; Tabares E; García R. 1992.

Somaclonal variation in plant adaptation to acid soil in the

tropical forage legume Stylosanthes guianensis. Plant and

Soil 146:21−30.

Rao I; Miles J; Wenzl P; Louw-Gaume A; Cardoso JA; Ri-

caurte J; Polania J; Rincón J; Hoyos V; Frossard E; Wa-

gatsuma T; Horst W. 2011. Mechanisms of adaptation of

brachiariagrasses to abiotic stress factors in the tropics. In:

Proceedings of the III International Symposium on Forage

Breeding, Bonito, MS, Brazil, 2011. Empresa Brasileira de

Pesquisa Agropecuária, Embrapa Gado de Corte, Campo

Grande, MS, Brazil. p. 361−383.

Rincón J; García R; Miles J; Rao IM. 2008. Genotypic varia-

tion in waterlogging tolerance of 71 promising Brachiaria

hybrids. In: Annual Report 2008. CIAT (Centro Interna-

cional de Agricultura Tropical), Cali, Colombia.

Valle CB; Pagliarini MS. 2009. Biology, cytogenetics, and

breeding of Brachiaria. In: Singh RJ, ed. Genetic re-

sources, chromosome engineering and crop improvement.

CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. p. 103−151.

Wenzl P; Arango A; Chaves AL; Buitrago ME; Patiño GM;

Miles J; Rao IM. 2006. A greenhouse method to screen

brachiariagrass genotypes for aluminum resistance and

root vigor. Crop Science 46:968−973.

Wood S; Sebastian K; Scherr S. 2000. Pilot analysis of global

ecosystems: Agroecosystems. IFPRI (International Food

Policy Research Institute) and WRI (World Resources In-

stitute), Washington, DC, USA.

Zhou M. 2010. Improvement of waterlogging tolerance. In:

Shabala S; Mancuso S, eds. Waterlogging tolerance and

signalling in plants. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. p.

267−285.

© 2013








Integrated crop-livestock systems − a key to sustainable

intensification in Africa

A.J. DUNCAN2, S.A. TARAWALI

1, P.J. THORNE

2, D. VALBUENA

3, K. DESCHEEMAEKER

3 AND

S. HOMANN-KEE TUI4

1International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya. www.ilri.org

2ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. www.ilri.org

3Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. www.wageningenur.nl

4International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. www.icrisat.org

Keywords: Integration, mixed crop-livestock intensification, sustainability.

Abstract

Mixed crop-livestock systems provide livelihoods for a billion people and produce half the world’s cereal and around a

third of its beef and milk. Market orientation and strong and growing demand for food provide powerful incentives for

sustainable intensification of both crop and livestock enterprises in smallholders’ mixed systems in Africa. Better exploita-

tion of the mutually reinforcing nature of crop and livestock systems can contribute to a positive, inclusive growth

trajectory that is both ecologically and economically sustainable. In mixed systems, livestock intensification is often ne-

glected relative to crops, yet livestock can make a positive contribution to raising productivity of the entire farming system.

Similarly, intensification of crop production can pay dividends for livestock and enhance natural resource management,

especially through increased biomass availability. Intensification and improved efficiency of livestock production mean

less greenhouse gases per unit of milk and more milk per unit of water. This paper argues that the opportunities and

challenges justify greater investment in research for development to identify exactly where and how ‘win-win’ outcomes

can be achieved and what incentives, policies, technologies and other features of the enabling environment are needed to

enable sustainable, integrated and productive mixed crop-livestock systems.

Resumen

Los sistemas mixtos cultivos-ganadería proveen el sustento de mil millones de personas y producen la mitad de los cereales

en el mundo y aproximadamente 1/3 de la carne y la leche. En África la creciente orientación hacia los mercados y la fuerte

y creciente demanda por alimentos son poderosos incentivos para la intensificación sostenible tanto en el componente

cultivos como ganadería en sistemas mixtos de pequeños productores. Un mejor aprovechamiento de la naturaleza de re-

fuerzo mutuo de los sistemas mixtos cultivos-animales puede contribuir a un crecimiento que es ecológica y

económicamente sostenible. En estos sistemas, la intensificación del componente pecuario a menudo recibe menor atención

que los cultivos, a pesar de que puede hacer una gran contribución para elevar la productividad del sistema de producción

como un conjunto. Por otro lado, la intensificación de la producción de cultivos puede proporcionar dividendos para el

componente pecuario y el manejo de los recursos naturales, especialmente mediante el aumento de la biomasa disponible.

La intensificación y el mejoramiento de la eficiencia en la producción pecuaria significan menos gases de efecto invernade-

ro por unidad de leche producida y más leche por unidad de agua. En este documento se sostiene que las oportunidades y

los desafíos justifican una mayor inversión en investigación para identificar en forma exacta dónde y cómo se logran resul-

tados que sean beneficiosos para ambos componentes y qué incentivos, políticas, tecnologías y otras características de un

entorno propicio son necesarios para el desarrollo de los sistemas mixtos cultivos-ganadería sostenibles, integrados y pro-

ductivos.

___________

Correspondence: S.A. Tarawali, International Livestock Research

Institute (ILRI), PO Box 30709, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya.




http://www.wageningenur.nl/

http://www.icrisat.org/

203 A.J. Duncan, S.A. Tarawali, P.J. Thorne, D. Valbuena, K. Descheemaeker and S. Homann-Kee Tui


The global importance of mixed crop-livestock

systems

Mixed crop-livestock systems produce 50% of global

cereals, 34% of beef and 30% of milk. Almost one billion

people rely on these systems as their primary source of

livelihood (Herrero et al. 2009). A recent review and up-

date of global farming systems assessments stressed the

importance of including how crops and animals are pro-

duced and how they interact, if such information is to be

used in the context of priority setting and targeting related

to livelihoods (Robinson et al. 2011).

The extent and importance of these systems for liveli-

hoods, food security and natural resource management,

against a backdrop of growing demand for food, need to be

balanced against potentially negative impacts on natural

resources and the environment. These arise where systems

have already reached a limit of natural resource use

(Herrero et al. 2009), or where the environmental footprint

per unit of product is high due to low animal productivity.

Key interactions in integrated mixed systems relate to the

following factors:

Feeding

Straw, stover and other fibrous by-products of cereal and

legume production, thinnings and weeds make important

contributions to ruminant diets in a wide range of agro-

ecologies and farming systems. The role of crop residues

in semi-arid areas with low and erratic rainfall is particu-

larly significant; they may be the only source of feed in

late dry seasons or drought periods (Valbuena et al. 2012).

Organic soil nutrients

Livestock manure can contribute to the nutrient needs of

the crops and help to maintain soil organic matter and

beneficial physical properties, such as water and nutrient

retention capacities. In remote areas with inefficient supply

chains for inorganic fertilizers, livestock manure can be the

only source of applied nutrients. Liu et al. (2010) estimate

that 23% of the nitrogen for crop production in mixed

systems comes from livestock.

Provision of power

Draught or dual-purpose cattle and equines ease the drudg-

ery and burden of hand cultivation, harvesting and other

cropping operations and increase crop yields. Despite

increased mechanization, animal traction continues to play

an important role, especially in sub-Saharan Africa (FAO

2011).

Cash flows

The importance of cash income from livestock, which can

be reinvested in another enterprise, is often ignored in

considering crop-livestock integration; yet this can be very

significant. In Southern Zimbabwe, for example, women

sell goats to purchase inputs for their cropping enterprises,

amongst other needs (Homann et al. 2007).

Integrated systems - key drivers and trends

Integrated crop-livestock systems are under considerable

pressure due to rapidly rising human populations in devel-

oping countries. In addition, the trend towards increased

urbanization and rising incomes in these regions leads to

shift in diets – less reliance on staples (cereals and tubers);

more demand for better quality and more diverse diets

made up of more fruit and vegetables; and much more

meat, milk, eggs and fish – the animal-source foods (Del-

gado et al. 1999; FAO 2011; Otte et al. 2012).

The rising demand presents environmental, economic

and social challenges, such as land and water degradation,

greenhouse gas emissions and smallholder marginalization.

It also presents opportunities for some (not all) crop-

livestock systems to be part of a positive livestock-sector

transformation in developing countries (Tarawali et al.

2011). Balancing these issues necessitates addressing the

current low productivity of mixed crop-livestock systems

and their unfavorable environmental footprint, in the con-

text of a complex of both technological and institutional

dimensions (Pretty et al. 2011). Such a positive trajectory

will include a shift from smallholders raising many low-

producing animals to fewer, more productive livestock in

efficient and market-linked systems. This is what is re-

ferred to here as intensification of livestock production –

not a shift to industrial-style systems. In some instances,

the route will facilitate a transition from agriculture-

dependent livelihoods to other options, including estab-

lishment of small businesses and access to better

educational opportunities for children, which opens a

wider range of opportunities than were available to their

parents – options which will increasingly become available

to those who remain part of a vibrant, carefully managed

agricultural sector too. While intensification and greater

market orientation can provide additional investments for

further crop-livestock intensification, migration and diver-

sification can lead to household labor shortages on the

farm. Both, however, can also be drivers for yet further

intensification – or, alternatively, facilitate orderly exit

from the sector.

Compared with trends in Asia, cereal yields in Africa

have increased at a much slower rate; this is due to multi-

Sustainable intensification of crop-livestock systems 204


ple factors, including poor agro-ecological conditions and

governance, lack of efficient input-supply systems and

dysfunctional output markets (FAO 2012). The story is

similar for livestock. Africa is still characterized by large

numbers of unproductive livestock and high livestock

mortality rates, often above 20% per annum. Low off-take

rates, typically below 3% per annum, suggest a huge po-

tential for economic benefits if the losses could be

prevented and transformed into marketable products (van

Rooyen and Homann 2009).

Fortunately, there are islands of success in Africa, such

as the Kenya dairy sector. Here smallholders are doing

much better: best-practice technology and management

options have been adopted; input and output markets func-

tion; natural resources are sustainably managed; and high-

quality crops and animal-source foods are produced in an

appropriate policy environment, generating a net present

value of US$230 M, which is benefiting producers, con-

sumers and vendors (Kaitibie et al. 2010).

Coupled nature of crop-livestock interactions – need

for sustainable intensification

Herrero et al. (2009; 2010) distinguish 2 classes of crop-

livestock systems, which differ in their degree of intensifi-

cation and potential for further growth. Mixed intensive

systems have higher population density, high agro-

ecological potential, especially through irrigation, and

good links to markets with some purchased inputs being

regularly used. In contrast, mixed extensive systems have

medium population density, moderate agro-ecological

potential, are largely dependent on rain-fed agriculture and

use few purchased inputs. The latter systems have potential

for sustainable intensification, the former have in many

cases reached limits in terms of biophysical aspects and

some may need to de-intensify.

Market orientation and strong and growing demand for

food provide powerful incentives for intensification and

greater efficiency of both crop and livestock enterprises in

smallholder mixed systems in Africa. We also present

below some ideas on how to exploit the mutually reinforc-

ing nature of crop-livestock systems to raise productivity

in a manner that is both ecologically and economically

sustainable.

In mixed systems intensification of both crop and

livestock production is needed

Livestock are often the neglected element of mixed sys-

tems; research, development and extension efforts tend to

favor intensification of staple crops, despite consistent

evidence that 4 out of 5 of the highest value commodities

are livestock products (FAO 2013). A recent study of

intensification from 72 villages across the Indo-Gangetic

Plain (Erenstein and Thorpe 2010) illustrated the effects of

lagging livestock intensification; although crop production

has intensified, livestock systems have not. Lack of inten-

sification of livestock production contrasts with policy

initiatives in the crop sector, such as heavy subsidies for

fertilizer and irrigation. This asynchrony in the pace of

crop and livestock intensification has environmental impli-

cations; for example, low-producing animals are less likely

to be housed and more likely to consume crop residues

from the field with implications for both residue and ma-

nure management and use – key dimensions of integrated

systems. In sub-Saharan Africa, Haileselassie et al. (2009)

showed that mixed systems have higher water productivity

than crop production alone. Descheemaeker et al. (2010)

reinforced such results, providing examples of 3-fold

increases in water productivity for mixed as compared with

single enterprise systems and explored the supporting

policy and institutional issues.

Intensification of crop production can pay dividends for

livestock and the environment

Crop residues are a key element of the interaction between

crops and livestock in mixed systems. However, competing

uses for residues are numerous and include livestock feed-

ing, retention as sources of soil organic matter, use as

household fuel and for construction, and sales to others for

all these and other uses. Results from a recent 9-country

study spanning sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia showed

that, across all locations, livestock feeding accounted for a

major proportion of crop residue use. Evidence showed

that some mulching was practiced but only in the most

intensive sites; elsewhere there was almost no allocation of

crop residues to soil improvement. Continual removal of

crop residue biomass will deplete soil organic matter and is

unsustainable in the long term (Valbuena et al. 2012). The

study illustrates the pressure on biomass in smallholder

systems and indicates the need to increase biomass produc-

tivity. Sustainable intensification (Pretty et al. 2011) of

mixed crop-livestock systems is one of the answers: al-

though crop residues might be allocated to livestock feed-

ing, manure can then be applied to the soil and income

from sales of livestock products can be used to buy ferti-

lizer to drive increases in crop productivity, including of

improved dual food-feed crops or even forage crops, with

the overall result being increased farm productivity.

205 A.J. Duncan, S.A. Tarawali, P.J. Thorne, D. Valbuena, K. Descheemaeker and S. Homann-Kee Tui


Intensification of livestock production can reduce

greenhouse gas production

Livestock production is often associated with high usage

and pollution of water and greenhouse gas emissions

(Steinfeld et al. 2006). In smallholder systems, however,

livestock intensification will be essential to curb the nega-

tive environmental consequences associated with the

sector, especially decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and

reducing the amount of water used per unit of meat or milk

produced (Capper 2011).

In India, increasing the milk yield from the current na-

tional average of 3.6 L per buffalo or cow per day to 15 L

per day, which is considered attainable with current genetic

quality, would roughly halve emissions per liter of milk

produced (Tarawali et al. 2011). A large proportion of the

water used in livestock production is used to produce feed,

so increasing animal productivity has a dramatic effect in

reducing the amount of water used per unit of livestock

product (Descheemaeker et al. 2011).

Key considerations in increasing productivity and re-

ducing environmental impacts include reallocation of

available feed resources to fewer animals, increased per

animal production and reduced numbers of animals. Plant

breeders can select for improved crop-residue quality

without reducing grain yield; this approach has now been

adopted in a number of crop-breeding programs to produce

better dual-purpose crops (Blümmel 2010).

Conclusion and ways forward

Mixed crop-livestock systems make vital contributions to

global food supply and livelihoods. The contribution of

livestock in these systems is, however, often neglected by

research, development and extension organizations relative

to crops. There is considerable potential, however, for a

win-win situation, in which greater productivity of crops

and livestock is achieved in a more environmentally

sustainable manner, if the integration of crops and

livestock in mixed systems is improved. A key challenge is

how best to allocate biomass resources in these systems.

The opportunities and challenges justify significantly more

investment in research for development to identify exactly

where and how win-win outcomes can be achieved and

what incentives, policies, technologies and other features

of the enabling environment are needed to encourage

sustainable, integrated and productive mixed crop-

livestock systems.

References

Blümmel M, ed. 2010. Special issue on food feed crops. Animal

Nutrition and Feed Technology Vol. 10S.

Capper JL. 2011. Replacing rose-tinted spectacles with a high-

powered microscope: The historical versus modern carbon

footprint of animal agriculture. Animal Frontiers 1:26–32.

Delgado C; Rosegrant M; Steinfeld H. 1999. Livestock to 2020:

The next food revolution. IFPRI Brief 61. IFPRI (Inter-

national Food Policy Research Institute), Washington, DC,

USA.

Descheemaeker K; Amede T; Haileselassie A. 2010. Improving

water productivity in mixed crop livestock farming systems

of sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Water Management

97:579−586.

Descheemaeker K; Amede T; Haileselassie A; Bossio D. 2011.

Analysis of water productivity gaps and effects of interven-

tions on livestock water productivity in mixed crop livestock

systems. Experimental Agriculture 47:21−38.

Erenstein O; Thorpe W. 2010. Crop-livestock interactions along

agro-ecological gradients: A meso-level analysis in the Indo-

Gangetic Plains, India. Environment, Development and

Sustainability12:669−689.

FAO. 2011. World Livestock 2011 – Livestock in food security.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-

tions), Rome, Italy.

www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2373e/i2373e.pdf

FAO. 2012. The state of food and agriculture. Investing in

agriculture for a better future. FAO (Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations), Rome, Italy.

www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3028e/i3028e.pdf

FAO. 2013. FAOSTAT statistical database. faostat.fao.org

Haileselassie A; Peden D; Gebreselassie S; Amede T;

Descheemaeker K. 2009. Livestock water productivity in

mixed crop-livestock farming systems of the Blue Nile ba-

sin: Assessing variability and prospects for improvement.

Agricultural Systems 102:33−40.


Kruska R; Dixon J; Bossio D; van de Steeg J; Freeman HA;

Li X; Parthasarathy Rao P. 2009. Drivers of change in crop-

livestock systems and their impacts on agro-ecosystems ser-

vices and human well-being to 2030. ILRI (International

Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

www.goo.gl/KbZxDa

Herrero M; Thornton PK; Notenbaert AM; Wood S; Msangi S;

Freeman HA; Bossio D; Dixon J; Peters M; van de Steeg J;

Lynam J; Parthasarathy Rao P; MacMillan S; Gerard B;

McDermott J; Seré C; Rosegrant M. 2010. Smart

investments in sustainable food production: Revisiting

mixed crop-livestock production. Science 327:822.

Homann S; van Rooyen A; Moyo T; Nengomasha Z. 2007. Goat

production and marketing: Baseline information for semi-

arid Zimbabwe. ICRISAT (International Crops Research In-

stitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics), Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.

Kaitibie S; Omore A; Rich K; Kristjanson P. 2010. Kenyan dairy

policy change: Influence pathways and economic impacts.

World Development 38:1494−1505.

Liu J; You L; Amini M; Obersteiner M; Herrero M; Zehnder

AJB; Yang H. 2010. A high-resolution assessment of nitro-

gen flows in cropland. Proceedings of the National Academy

of Sciences of the United States of America 107:835–840.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2373e/i2373e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3028e/i3028e.pdf

http://faostat.fao.org/

http://www.goo.gl/KbZxDa

Sustainable intensification of crop-livestock systems 206


Pretty J; Toulmin C; Williams S. 2011. Sustainable intensifica-

tion: Increasing productivity in African food and agriculture

systems. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

9:5−24.

Otte J; Costales A; Dijkman J; Pica-Ciamarra U; Robinson

T; Ahuja V; Ly C; Roland-Holst D. 2012. Livestock sector

development for poverty reduction: An economic and

policy perspective – livestock’s many virtues. FAO (Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Rome,

Italy.

www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2744e/i2744e00.pdf

Robinson TP; Thornton PK; Franceschini T; Kruska

RL; Chiozza F; Notenbaert A; Checchi G; Herrero M;

Epprecht M; Fritz S; You L; Conchedda G; See L. 2011.

Global livestock production systems. FAO (Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and

ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Rome,

Italy.

www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2414e/i2414e00.pdf





ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/A0701E/A0701E00.pdf

Tarawali SA; Herrero M; Descheemaeker K; Grings E; Blümmel

M. 2011. Pathways for sustainable development of mixed

crop livestock systems: Taking a livestock and pro-poor ap-

proach. Livestock Science 139:11–21.

Valbuena D; Erenstein O; Homann-Kee Tui S; Abdoulaye T;

Claessens L; Duncan AJ; Gerard B; Rufino MC; Teufel N;

van Rooyen A; van Wijk MT. 2012. Conservation

Agriculture in mixed crop-livestock systems: Scoping crop

residue trade-offs in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

Field Crops Research 132:175−184.

van Rooyen A; Homann-Kee Tui S. 2009. Promoting goat

markets and technology development in semi-arid

Zimbabwe for food security and income growth. Tropical

and Subtropical Agroecosystems 11:1−5.

© 2013




http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2744e/i2744e00.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2414e/i2414e00.pdf

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/A0701E/A0701E00.pdf




Impact of tropical forage seed development in villages in Thailand

and Laos: Research to village farmer production to seed export

MICHAEL D. HARE1, SUPHAPHAN PHENGPHET

1, THEERACHAI SONGSIRI

1, NADDAKORN SUTIN

1,

EDWARD S.F. VERNON2 AND EDUARDO STERN

3

1Ubon Forage Seeds, Faculty of Agriculture, Ubon Ratchathani University, Ubon Ratchathani, Thailand.

www.ubuenglish.ubu.ac.th 2FoodWorks Co Ltd., Wanchai, Hong Kong, China. www.foodworks.ag

3Tropical Seeds, LLC, Coral Springs, FL, USA. www.tropseeds.com

Keywords: Gross margin analysis, hand-seed harvesting, hybrid brachiarias, stylo, guinea grasses, Paspalum atratum.

Abstract

Seed of 6 forage varieties, Mulato II hybrid brachiaria, Cayman hybrid brachiaria, Mombasa guinea, Tanzania guinea,

Ubon stylo and Ubon paspalum, are currently being produced by more than 1000 smallholder farmers in villages in north-

east Thailand and northern Laos, under contract to Ubon Forage Seeds, Faculty of Agriculture, Ubon Ratchathani

University, Thailand. The seed is mainly exported overseas (95%) and the remainder is sold within Thailand. Tropical

Seeds LLC, a subsidiary of the Mexican seed company, Grupo Papalotla, employs the seed producing and seed research

group, Ubon Forage Seeds, to manage seed production, seed sales and export, and to conduct research on new forage spe-

cies. This paper discusses in detail how the development in villages of a smallholder farmer seed production program has

had positive social and economic outcomes for the village seed growers and enabled farmers in other countries to receive

high quality forage seeds. The strong emphasis on seed quality, high purity, high vigor and high germination, has had a

large impact on tropical pastures in more than 20 tropical countries in Asia, Africa, the Pacific and Central and South

America.

Resumen

En el noreste de Tailandia y en el norte de Laos, aproximadamente 1000 pequeños productores, en contrato con Ubon

Forage Seeds, Faculty of Agriculture, Ubon Ratchathani University, Tailandia, producen semillas de Brachiaria híbridos

cvs. Mulato II y Cayman; de guinea (Panicum maximum) cvs. Mombasa y Tanzania; de stylo (Stylosanthes guianensis) cv.

Ubon stylo; y de paspalum (Paspalum atratum) cv. Ubon paspalum. Estas semillas se exportan principalmente a otros

países (95%); el resto se vende en Tailandia. Tropical Seeds LLC, subsidiaria de la compañía mexicana de semillas Grupo

Papalotla, emplea el grupo de producción e investigación Ubon Forage Seeds para manejar, vender y exportar la produc-

ción de semilla y conducir la investigación en nuevas variedades de forrajeras. En este documento se discute en detalle

cómo un programa de producción de semillas ha contribuido positivamente al desarrollo social y económico de comunida-

des de pequeños productores de semilla y ha hecho posible que productores de otros países se beneficien por el uso de

semillas de buena calidad. El fuerte énfasis en la calidad, alta pureza, alto vigor y alta germinación de las semillas ha tenido

un gran impacto en pasturas tropicales de más de 20 países de Asia, Africa, la región del Pacífico, Centro y Sur América.

Introduction

Seed of 6 forage varieties, Mulato II hybrid brachiaria

(Brachiaria ruziziensis x B. decumbens x B. brizantha),

Cayman hybrid brachiaria (B. ruziziensis x B. decumbens x

___________ Correspondence: Michael D. Hare, Ubon Forage Seeds, Faculty of

Agriculture, Ubon Ratchathani University, Ubon Ratchathani 34190,

Thailand.


B. brizantha), Mombasa guinea (Panicum maximum),

Tanzania guinea (P. maximum), Ubon stylo (Stylosanthes

guianensis) and Ubon paspalum (Paspalum atratum), is

currently being produced by more than 1000 smallholder

farmers in villages in northeast Thailand and northern

Laos. The seed, 150 t in 2013, is mainly exported overseas

(95%) and the remainder is sold within Thailand.

Tropical Seeds LLC, a subsidiary of the Mexican seed

company, Grupo Papalotla, employs a seed producing and

seed research group, Ubon Forage Seeds in the Faculty of

http://www.ubuenglish.ubu.ac.th/

http://www.foodworks.ag/

http://www.tropseeds.com/

208 M.D. Hare, S. Phengphet, T. Songsiri, N. Sutin, E.S.F. Vernon and E. Stern


Agriculture, Ubon Ratchathani University, to manage seed

production, seed sales and export, and to conduct research

on existing and new forage species. The decision to

produce seed in Thailand was because of forage seed

quality, smallholder experience and professionalism (Hare

1993) and Ubon Ratchathani University’s involvement in

forage seed production (Hare and Horne 2004; Hare 2007).

This paper discusses in detail the seed production of the

6 varieties and how the development in villages of a

smallholder farmer seed production program has had

positive social and economic outcomes for the village

seed growers and enabled many smallholder farmers

in other countries to receive high quality forage seeds.

Mulato II and Cayman hybrid brachiaria

Seed research

Producing good seed yields of Mulato II and Cayman has

been very difficult to achieve. Both produce sufficient

inflorescences, racemes and spikelets to indicate a poten-

tial for useful seed yields. However, by seed harvest, there

is usually a massive failure of seed set, caryopsis matura-

tion or both, with the cleaned seed containing less than 9%

of the spikelets formed by the crops. The subsequent fail-

ure of seed set is probably due to pollen sterility (Risso-

Pascotto et al. 2005) and this sterility is genetic.

A series of field trials have been conducted in an en-

deavor to increase seed yields through agronomic

management. The trials have been mainly with Mulato II

but the results can be applied to Cayman (Pizarro et al.

2013). Field trials have been on time of planting (Hare et

al. 2007a), closing date (Hare et al. 2007b) and methods of

seed harvesting (Hare et al. 2007c). Through this research,

seed yields have increased from 250 to over 600 kg/ha.

Farmer seed production

Seed production of Mulato II and Cayman in Thailand is

managed by Ubon Forage Seeds and in Laos by Happy

Farmers Co. Ltd. Thailand seed is produced in Nong Saeng

village, Roiet province (130 masl, 16 N) and in Laos in

several villages in Nga district, Oudomxay province (500

masl, 23 N). In Thailand, the seed is swept from the

ground but in Laos the seeds are knocked from seedheads

tied together. Farmers in Thailand treat Mulato II as an

annual crop, replanting each year. This is because Mulato

II seed crops, grown on very poor soils in Thailand, pro-

duce uneconomic seed yields in the second and subsequent

years, even with fertilizer. In Laos, on richer soils without

fertilizer, many farmers have been producing consistently

good yields (300 kg/ha) for over 5 years.

At Ubon Ratchathani University all Mulato II and

Cayman seed is treated with sulphuric acid to remove the

lemma and palea husks to improve seed germination, and

is washed, dried and recleaned before packaging for sale

and export. After acid-scarification, Mulato II and Cayman

seeds average 88–91% viability (tetrazolium test), 70–90%

germination and over 99.5% purity. Without acid-

scarification, the seed never exceeds 30% germination.

Even long-term storage will not increase germination, due

to the physical dormancy imposed by the tightly bound

lemma and palea husks (Hare et al. 2008).

Yields from ground-harvested Mulato II seed in Thai-

land have averaged 400 kg/ha since 2009 and many

farmers are now harvesting over 630 kg/ha. Thailand pro-

duction has increased from just under 10 000 kg in

2009/10, produced by 45 farmers, to 41 000 kg in 2012/13,

produced by 107 farmers.

In Laos, seed production has increased from 155 farm-

ers in 9 villages producing 2205 kg in 2007/08, to 600

farmers in 30 villages producing 28 000 kg in 2012/13.

Mombasa and Tanzania guinea grasses


In 2008, Ubon Forage Seeds first started producing Mom-

basa guinea seed for Tropical Seeds, mainly for export

back to Mexico. Because Mombasa is a large, leafy and

very productive grass, a strong market has recently devel-

oped for Mombasa in Asia. In 2010, Tropical Seeds asked

Ubon Forage Seeds to start producing Tanzania guinea

seed for export to Central America, because they wanted

seed of pure true-to-type Tanzania guinea, without contam-

ination by common varieties.

We have relied on farmer experience in producing Tan-

zania seed for several years (Phaikaew et al. 1995) to use

the same methods to produce Mombasa seed.

Strong winds in October can be a major problem, blow-

ing a lot of good seed to the ground. In the case of guinea

grass seed, farmers do not sweep fallen seed from the

ground. Seed yields of Mombasa guinea have ranged from

318 kg/ha in 2008 to 492 kg/ha in 2012.

In the past there has been too much light and empty

seed in the farmers’ guinea seed we purchased and it had to

be cleaned again at the university, losing over 20% in

weight in some instances. To overcome this problem,

starting in 2010, small seed cleaners with a strong air blast

were manufactured and given free to the seed growers.

These cleaners have been very successful, as the farmers

are able to clean their seed to over 99.5% purity, with seed

of a high thousand seed weight (Mombasa 1.54 g; Tanza-

nia 1.20 g). No further cleaning needs to be done at the

university for sale and export.

Tropical forage seed development in Thailand and Laos 209


Ubon stylo

Seed research

Ubon stylo produced 2.6 times the seed yield of Tha Phra

stylo (Stylosanthes guianensis) (959 vs. 365 kg/ha) in a

field trial at Ubon Ratchathani University. Closing stylo

seed crops in September doubled seed yield over closing in

October (Hare et al. 2007d). Germination tests on 1-year-

old stored Ubon stylo seed (Hare 2007) showed that hot

water and machine-scarification significantly increased

germination and reduced hard and dead seed. Without

scarification, seed germination was less than 10%. These

days, we acid-scarify the stylo seed because it is relatively

easy to do, and very high germination (99%) can be

achieved.


All Ubon stylo seed is swept from the ground in January–

February. Then it is acid-scarified at the university to

remove soil and the thin pod integuments, and to soften the

seed coat for maximum germination. The farmers’ yields

currently average more than 1000 kg/ha.

Ubon paspalum

Seed research

Field trials have been conducted on method and time of

planting (Hare et al. 2001a), method of harvesting and

closing date (Hare et al. 1999). A growth room study con-

firmed Ubon paspalum as a long-short day plant exhibiting

a quantitative response to long days followed by a qualita-

tive response to short days (Hare et al. 2001b).


Ubon paspalum seed is currently produced in only one

village in Thailand because the market demand for seed is

very small. Flowering is well synchronized and it is the

first seed crop harvested each year with harvesting taking

place in late September–early October.

Profitability of smallholder forage seed production in

Thailand and Laos

Forage seed crops are far more profitable than rice in

Thailand (Table 1), but forage seed crops cannot be plant-

ed on the low-lying, waterlogged paddies, where only rice

can be grown. Mulato II is the most profitable forage seed

crop, because yields from ground-swept seed are now

consistently between 500 and 650 kg/ha.

Cassava is the main competitor with forage seeds for

land in Thailand, particularly seed crops of Mombasa,

Tanzania and Mulato II. Cassava is a relatively easy crop

to grow and with the tubers in the soil, there is no risk of

losing seed from climate variations as with grass seed

crops. If cassava prices increase to more than US$ 0.10/kg,

many farmers would prefer to grow cassava. If the cassava

price drops to US$ 0.08/kg, farmers will plant more forage

seed crops.

Farmers in Nga district, Laos, do not hire any outside

labor for their agricultural production. Crops are sown by

hand, seed is free, no fertilizer, insecticides and herbicides

are used, cultivation is by hand and no machinery is hired

Table 1. Estimated costs and gross and net income (US$/ha) from rice, cassava and forage seeds in northeast Thailand.

Rice Cassava Ubon

paspalum

Mulato II Ubon stylo Mombasa

Direct Costs

Cultivation 125 125 125 125 125 125

Raising furrows 125 125

Fertilizer 375 415 210 210 210 210

Labor for weeding 125 65 125 125 65

Labor for harvesting 125 210 125 335 335 125

Hire digger to dig up tubers 125

Labor for cleaning/threshing 125 125 65 335 335 65

Transport 80 105

Total Direct Costs 830 1355 590 1130 1255 590

Sale price (US$/kg) 0.50 0.09 3.00 6.00 3.35 3.35

Yield (kg/ha) 2500 25 000 565 500 810 500

Gross Income 1250 2250 1695 3000 2714 1675

Net Income 420 895 1105 1870 1459 1085

210 M.D. Hare, S. Phengphet, T. Songsiri, N. Sutin, E.S.F. Vernon and E. Stern


Table 2. Estimated yield and net income (US$/ha) from rice and Mulato II seed in Nga district, Oudomxay province, Laos.

Rice Cassava Maize + Soybean Mulato II

Maize Soybean

Sale price (US$/kg) 0.25 0.05 0.08 0.30 4.00

Yield (kg/ha) 1500 25 000 3500 1500 278

Net Income 375 1250 280 450 1112

or used. No costs are incurred except for family labor and

time, which are common to all these crops. Mulato II seed

production is very profitable compared with upland gluti-

nous rice grown on steep hillsides, producing 6 times the

income (Table 2).

The major advantage of Mulato II seed is its relatively

high value per kg and less bulk, which helps offset high

transport costs from remote areas like Nga district to Thai-

land. In Laos, Mulato II is also proving to be a sustainable

and environmentally friendly agricultural crop in Nga

district, because it prevents erosion by providing a dense

vegetative cover on the hill slopes and growing for many

years, unlike upland rice and maize, which die after seed

harvest and do not provide a ground cover.

Export

Ubon Forage Seeds has achieved an international reputa-

tion for very high quality tropical forage seed, emphasizing

high purity, high vigor and high germination. The seeds

from ground-harvested Mulato II and Ubon stylo are acid-

scarified to remove soil particles and increase seed germi-

nation.

Mombasa, Tanzania and Ubon paspalum seed are all

cleaned by the farmers to over 99% purity and dried to

10% seed moisture. Farmer groups are supplied with free

seed cleaners to help them reach the required purity and

seed-weight standards we set. We also supply the farmer

groups with small scales and measuring jugs and they are

instructed carefully on how to sample to test seed weight

against volume. During the past 3 years, nearly 140 000 kg

of seed have been exported to 22 countries and 6000 kg

have been sold within Thailand. The main markets have

been in Central America (84 000 kg), Asia (32 000 kg) and

the Pacific region (23 000 kg). Africa is becoming an

emerging market.

Conclusion

Forage seed production in northeast Thailand and northern

Laos has become an economically viable and sustainable

cash crop for more than 1000 smallholder village farmers.

The seed is predominantly exported to dairy and beef cattle

smallholder farmers in other tropical countries in Asia,

Africa, the Pacific and Central and South America.

References

Hare MD. 1993. Development of tropical pasture seed produc-

tion in Northeast Thailand − two decades of progress.

Journal of Applied Seed Production 11:93−96.

Hare MD. 2007. Successful seed production of South American

forages in Ubon Ratchathani province, Thailand: Research,

development and export. In: Hare MD; Wongpichet K, eds.

Forages: A pathway to prosperity for smallholder farmers.

Proceedings of an International Forage Symposium. Faculty

of Agriculture, Ubon Ratchathani University, Thailand.

p. 35−60.

Hare MD; Wongpichet K; Tatsapong P; Narksombat S;

Saengkham M. 1999. Method of seed harvest, closing date

and height of closing cut affect seed yield and seed yield

components in Paspalum atratum. Tropical Grasslands

33:82−90.

Hare MD; Kaewkunya C; Tatsapong P; Wongpichet K;

Thummasaeng K; Suriyantratong W. 2001a. Method and

time of establishing Paspalum atratum seed crops in Thai-

land. Tropical Grasslands 35:19−25.

Hare MD; Wongpichet K; Saengkham M; Thummasaeng K;

Suriyajantratong W. 2001b. Juvenility and long-short day

requirement in relation to flowering of Paspalum atratum in

Thailand. Tropical Grasslands 35:139−143.

Hare MD; Horne PM. 2004. Forage seeds for promoting animal

production in Asia. APSA Technical Report No. 41. The

Asia & Pacific Seed Association, Bangkok, Thailand.

Hare MD; Tatsapong P; Saipraset K. 2007a. Seed production of

two brachiaria hybrid cultivars in north-east Thailand. 1.

Method and time of planting. Tropical Grasslands 41:26−34.

Hare MD; Tatsapong P; Saipraset K. 2007b. Seed production of


Closing date. Tropical Grasslands 41:35−42.

Hare MD; Tatsapong P; Saipraset K. 2007c. Seed production of


Harvesting method. Tropical Grasslands 41:43−49.

Hare MD; Tatsapong P; Phengphet S; Lunpha S. 2007d. Stylos-

anthes species in north-east Thailand: Dry matter yields and

seed production. Tropical Grasslands 41:253−259.

Hare MD; Tatsapong P; Phengphet S. 2008. Effect of seed

storage on germination of brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato.

Tropical Grasslands 42:224−228.

Phaikaew C; Pholsen P; Chinosang W. 1995. Effect of harvest-

ing methods on seed yield and quality of purple guinea

grass(P. maximum T.58) produced by small farmers in Khon

Kaen. Proceedings of the 14th

Annual Livestock Conference,

Department of Livestock Development, Bangkok, Thailand.

p. 14−22.

Tropical forage seed development in Thailand and Laos 211


Pizarro E; Hare MD; Mutimura M; Changjun B. 2013. Brachia-

ria hybrids: Potential, forage use and seed yield. Proceed-

ings of the 22nd

International Grassland Congress, Sydney,

Australia, 2013. p. 193−196.

Risso-Pascotto C; Pagliarini MS; Valle CB do. 2005. Meiotic

behavior in interspecific hybrids between Brachiaria

ruziziensis and Brachiaria brizantha (Poaceae). Euphytica

145:155−159.

© 2013







Dry season forages for improving dairy production in smallholder

systems in Uganda

JOLLY KABIRIZI1, EMMA ZIIWA

2, SWIDIQ MUGERWA

1, JEAN NDIKUMANA

2 AND WILLIAM NANYENNYA

1

1National Livestock Resources Research Institute, Tororo, Uganda. www.naro.go.ug

2Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA), Entebbe, Uganda.

www.asareca.org

Keywords: Napier grass, East Africa, legumes, Brachiaria, milk yield, income.

Abstract

Economically feasible strategies for year-round feed supply to dairy cattle are needed to improve feed resource availability,

milk yield and household income for the smallholder dairy farming systems that predominate in the rural Eastern and Cen-

tral African region. Currently, Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) is the major forage in zero-grazing production

systems, but dry-season production is often constrained. Our results from 24 farms show that sowing forage legumes, in-

cluding Centrosema molle (formerly C. pubescens) and Clitoria ternatea, with Napier grass and Brachiaria hybrid cv.

Mulato improved both yield of forage and protein concentration. Sowing of 0.5 ha Napier-Centro plus 0.5 ha of Mulato-

Clitoria increased milk yield by 80% and household income by 52% over 0.5 ha Napier grass monoculture. Possible in-

come foregone from the crops which could have been grown on the additional 0.5 ha must be considered in assessing the

economic viability of the system.

Resumen

Para mejorar la disponibilidad, durante todo el año, del recurso forrajero, la producción de leche y el ingreso de las peque-

ñas fincas lecheras que predominan en África Oriental y Central, es necesario desarrollar estrategias económicamente

viables. El pasto napier (elefante; Pennisetum purpureum) es el principal forraje en sistemas de producción con animales en

confinamiento, pero su productividad en la época seca es limitada. Nuestros resultados, obtenidos en 24 fincas, muestran

que sembrando leguminosas forrajeras, como Centrosema molle (sin. C. pubescens) y Clitoria ternatea, en mezcla con el

pasto napier y el híbrido de Brachiaria cv. Mulato, se logra mejorar la producción de forraje y su concentración de proteí-

na cruda. Con 0.5 ha de pasto napier-Centrosema y adicionalmente 0.5 ha de Mulato-Clitoria se logró un incremento del

80% en la producción de leche y del 52% en el ingreso de la finca, en comparación con 0.5 ha del pasto napier solo. Sin

embargo, un análisis económico a nivel de sistema de producción debe tener en cuenta la ausencia de ingresos procedentes

de un alternativo uso agrícola del área adicional de 0.5 ha.

Introduction

Smallholder dairy farming systems dominate in the rural

Eastern and Central African region, employ over 70% of

the region’s population and contribute 70–90% of the total

meat and milk output in the region (Njarui et al. 2012).

Small-scale dairy production plays a crucial role in food

security, human health and overall household livelihoods,

particularly among climate change-prone resource-poor

households in the region. Zero-grazing dairy systems are

increasingly promoted, owing to grazing land shortage

___________ Correspondence: J. Kabirizi, National Livestock Resources Research

Institute, PO Box 96, Tororo, Uganda.


and intensive dairy production requirements. Women are

immense contributors to and beneficiaries from smallhold-

er dairy production systems (Njarui et. al. 2012), which are

progressively being devastated by rapid climate change

and its attendant extreme weather conditions. The availa-

bility of livestock feeds in rural households is being

affected by climate change. The lack of effective adapta-

tion to the adverse effects of climate change is likely to

jeopardize the achievement of Millennium Development

Goals 1 (eradicating extreme poverty and hunger), 7 (en-

suring environmental sustainability) and 3 (promoting

gender equality and empowering women) (United Nations

2010).

Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) is the major for-

age in zero-grazing production systems in Masaka district,

http://www.naro.go.ug/

http://www.asareca.org/

213 J. Kabirizi, E. Ziiwa, W. Mugerwa, J. Ndikumana and W. Nanyennya


Uganda (Kabirizi 2006). However, grass productivity is

constrained by long droughts, poor agronomic practices,

such as lack of fertilizer application and improper cutting

frequency and cutting height, and by pests and diseases,

the napier stunt disease being particularly important, re-

sulting in a reduction in fodder yield of up to 100% during

the dry season. Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato (Mulato) has

high biomass yield and tolerates long droughts and poor

soils (CIAT 2001) and could be used to complement Na-

pier grass. It is recommended that Mulato be grown to

provide forage, when Napier grass production is low.

It is generally recommended, furthermore, that forages

be grown in grass-legume mixtures in order to not only

ensure energy-protein balance for livestock, but also har-

ness atmospheric nitrogen (N) via the legume component

(Thomas 1995; Kabirizi 2006). Among the best-known,

but not widely used forage legumes in Uganda are

Centrosema molle (syn. C. pubescens; Centro) and Clitoria

ternatea (Clitoria); both are deep-rooting and considered as

drought-tolerant. However, regardless of whether sown as

a monocrop or in mixture with a legume, the officially

recommended 0.5-ha Napier grass area is not sufficient to

provide year-round forage for 1 cow and its calf.

This study was designed to develop economically feasi-

ble strategies for year-round feed supply to dairy cattle in

order to improve feed resource availability, milk yield and

household income, by comparing in on-farm trials the

newly introduced drought-tolerant Mulato with commonly

used Napier, both grown with a drought-tolerant legume.

Methods

The study was conducted in Masaka district, Central

Uganda (00o15'‒00

o43' S, 31

o‒32

o E; 1150 m asl). Annual

average rainfall is 800–1000 mm with 100–120 rainy days,

in 2 seasons. Mean temperature ranges between 16 oC and

30 oC, while relative humidity is 62%. The district is typi-

cally dependent on crop-livestock systems, with vegetable

production as a key income generator.

The study targeted zero-grazing dairy farmers with 1–2

cows and at least 2 ha of land. The treatments involved 2

grass-legume mixtures: Napier with Centro and Mulato

with Clitoria. These mixtures were established as forage

banks in 0.5 ha each on 24 randomly selected farms using

methods described in Humphreys (1995) and CIAT (2001).

The mixtures were compared with the farmers’ practice of

growing Napier grass alone. Farmers participated in all

stages of project implementation to enhance rapid uptake

of emerging knowledge and practices. The study was laid

out in a randomized complete block design with household

farms as replications. Fodder and milk yields from all 24

farms were recorded for 2 years. Dry matter yields and

associated feeding periods were estimated using methods

described by Humphreys (1995). Data were analyzed with

costs of inputs and returns from milk (including home-

consumed) recorded for profitability evaluation using

partial budgeting.

Results and Discussion

Intercropping Centro with Napier grass increased fodder

availability by 52%, crude protein (CP) concentration by

20% and feeding period (number of days a cow was able to

feed on fodder from a given area of land) by 52% (Table

1). The Mulato-Clitoria mixture provided dry matter yields

and a feeding period that were intermediate between the 2

Napier treatments but the increase in CP concentration was

73 respectively 44% higher.

Table 1. Fodder availability and quality, and feeding period for

different forage banks. Figures refer to 2 years.

Parameter Forage bank

s.e. Napier

grass

monocrop

Napier

grass-

Centro

Mulato

grass-

Clitoria

Mean DM yield (kg/ha) 10 354 15 790 12 119 307

Feeding period from 0.5 ha

(days)

167.0 254.6 195.5 20.9

Mean crude protein concentration (%)

7.0 8.4 12.1 0.14

Higher total fodder yields and CP concentrations in in-

tercrops (Table 1) could be attributed to the presence of

forage legumes that improved growth of the grass. The

legume acted as a cover crop to control weeds and con-

serve soil moisture during the dry periods, apart from the

possibility of augmenting N supply to the grass component

through symbiotic N-fixation (Kabirizi 2006).

The results confirmed that the currently recommended

acreage of 0.5 ha of a mixture of Napier grass with a for-

age legume (Samanya 1996) will produce additional forage

of higher quality than Napier grass alone but cannot sustain

an economically producing dairy cow and its calf for a full

year. Therefore, establishment of an additional 0.5 ha of a

mixture of the drought-tolerant Mulato with a forage leg-

ume is recommended for feeding during the dry season,

when production of Napier grass monocrop is disadvan-

taged due to drought, the napier stunt disease and poor

agronomic practices.

A second study was conducted comparing the benefi-

ciaries of the drought-tolerant forage technology (0.5 ha

Napier + Centro mixture plus 0.5 ha Mulato + Clitoria

mixture) with the non-beneficiaries (0.5 ha Napier

monocrop) (Table 2). There were no significant (P>0.05)

differences in land size and number of cattle kept between

Dry season forages for smallholder dairy production 214


Table 2. Socio-economic benefits of integrating Napier grass-Centro and Brachiaria cv. Mulato-Clitoria in Napier grass-based farming

systems.

Farm characteristics Beneficiaries (n=24) Non-beneficiaries (n=24) F-test IA1

Mean SD Mean SD

Land size (ha) 1.7 1.2 1.6 0.9 0.12 NS

Cattle (number) 1.5 0.5 1.3 0.7 0.03 NS

Fodder area (ha) 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 14.4** 134.1

Feed offered/cow/d (fresh, kg) 55.4 12.3 31.4 7.2 5.7* 76.4

Milk yield (L/d) 10.6 7.2 5.9 3.1 4.3* 79.7

Revenue (US$) from milk yield/cow/yr 676.9 48.2 444 64.1 1.66 NS 52.4

1IA: Intervention advantage (%).

the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the interventions

but sowing 0.5 ha of each of the grass-legume mixtures

improved milk yield and household income by 80 and

52%, respectively, over 0.5 ha Napier grass. The benefi-

ciaries fed 76% more high-quality forage, i.e. the milk

yield response was largely due to simply feeding more.

Beneficiaries, however, had 120% more land sown to

fodder, implying they were not harvesting as much forage

per ha (if all harvested forage was fed to cows) or

were able to sell fodder to others.

In assessing the overall benefits of this production sys-

tem, it is important to remember that an extra 0.5 ha was

sown to a grass-legume mixture and was no longer availa-

ble for other agricultural purposes.

Conclusion

Replacing traditional Napier grass forage banks with grass-

legume mixtures, including the drought-tolerant

Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato and the deep-rooted legumes

Centro and Clitoria, is a promising strategy for year-round

feed supply to smallholder dairy cattle in Central and East

Africa. The income foregone from the additional area sown

to pasture must be taken into consideration in assessing the

profitability of this practice.

Acknowledgments

This publication is a product of a regional project funded

by ASARECA (Association for Strengthening Agricultural

Research in Eastern and Central Africa). We thank

farmers, local leaders, implementing institutions and dis-

trict staff for their commitment.

References

CIAT. 2001. Annual Report 2001. Project IP-5: Tropical grasses

and legumes: Optimizing genetic diversity for multipurpose

use. CIAT (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical),

Cali, Colombia. p. 110−112.

Humphreys LR. 1995. Tropical Pasture Utilization. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kabirizi JM. 2006. Effect of integrating forage legumes in

smallholder dairy farming systems on feed availability and

animal performance. Ph.D. Thesis. Makerere University,

Kampala, Uganda.

Njarui DMG; Kabirizi JM; Itabari JK; Gatheru M; Nakiganda A;

Mugerwa S. 2012. Production characteristics and gender

roles in dairy farming in peri-urban areas of Eastern and

Central Africa. Livestock Research for Rural Development

24, Article #122.

(Retrieved 26 May 2012 from

www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/7/njar24122.htm)

Samanya JP. 1996. Evaluation of feed resources for the zero

grazing dairy production system in the fertile Lake Victoria

Crescent zone of Uganda. A case study of Jinja Women

Heifer Project. M.Sc. Thesis. Makerere University, Kampa-

la, Uganda.

Thomas RJ. 1995. Role of legumes in providing N for sustaina-

ble tropical pasture systems. Plant and Soil 174:103−118.

United Nations. 2010. Keeping the promise: Millennium Devel-

opment Goals Report 2009. Secretary-General’s Report,

United Nations, March 2010.

www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/documents.shtml

© 2013




http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/7/njar24122.htm

http://www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/documents.shtml




Understanding the causes of bush encroachment in Africa: The key

to effective management of savanna grasslands OLAOTSWE E. KGOSIKOMA

1 AND KABO MOGOTSI

2

1Department of Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture, Gaborone, Botswana. www.moa.gov.bw

2Department of Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture, Francistown, Botswana. www.moa.gov.bw

Keywords: Rangeland degradation, fire, indigenous ecological knowledge, livestock grazing, rainfall variability.

Abstract

The increase in biomass and abundance of woody plant species, often thorny or unpalatable, coupled with the suppres-

sion of herbaceous plant cover, is a widely recognized form of rangeland degradation. Bush encroachment therefore

has the potential to compromise rural livelihoods in Africa, as many depend on the natural resource base. The causes

of bush encroachment are not without debate, but fire, herbivory, nutrient availability and rainfall patterns have been

shown to be the key determinants of savanna vegetation structure and composition. In this paper, these determinants

are discussed, with particular reference to arid and semi-arid environments of Africa. To improve our current under-

standing of causes of bush encroachment, an integrated approach, involving ecological and indigenous knowledge

systems, is proposed. Only through our knowledge of causes of bush encroachment, both direct and indirect, can better

livelihood adjustments be made, or control measures and restoration of savanna ecosystem functioning be realized.

Resumen

Una forma ampliamente reconocida de degradación de pasturas es el incremento de la abundancia de especies de plan-

tas leñosas, a menudo espinosas y no palatables, y de su biomasa, conjuntamente con la pérdida de plantas herbáceas.

En África, la invasión por arbustos puede comprometer el sistema de vida rural ya que muchas personas dependen de

los recursos naturales básicos. Las causas de la invasión por arbustos no están lo suficientemente claras pero el fuego,

los herbívoros, la disponibilidad de nutrientes y el patrón de precipitación han demostrado ser determinantes clave de

la estructura y la composición de la vegetación de sabana. En este documento se hace un análisis del impacto de estos

determinantes, con especial referencia a los ambientes áridos y semi-áridos de África. Para una mejor comprensión de

las causas de la invasión por arbustos se propone un enfoque integrado que involucra sistemas ecológicos y de cono-

cimiento autóctono. Solamente a través del conocimiento, tanto directo como indirecto, de las causas de la invasión

por arbustos, será posible hacer los ajustes necesarios para una mejor calidad de vida o tomar las medidas de control y

restauración de las funciones del ecosistema de sabanas.

Introduction

Savanna ecosystems are characterized by a continuous

layer of herbaceous plants, e.g. grasses, and sparsely

populated patches of trees and shrubs. The proliferation

of woody plants in savanna ecosystems is known as bush

encroachment (van Auken 2009) and an increase of 10%

___________ Correspondence: Olaotswe E. Kgosikoma, Department of Agri-

cultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture, Private Bag 0033,

Gaborone, Botswana.


woody cover will lead to a 7% decline in grazing re-

sources in East Africa (Oba et al. 2000). Subsequently,

bush encroachment leads to reduced livestock carrying

capacity of that particular ecosystem (Ward 2005). This

has serious implications for food security, as large areas

of arid lands occupied by millions of people are en-

croached by woody plants, leading to decline in agri-

cultural productivity. For example, it has been indicated

that agricultural productivity of 10–20 Mha in South

Africa (Ward 2005) and 37 000 km² in Botswana in

1994 (Moleele et al. 2002) has been affected by bush

encroachment, thereby threatening the sustainability of

livestock production systems and human well-being.

http://www.moa.gov.bw/

http://www.moa.gov.bw/


216 O.E. Kgosikoma and K. Mogotsi


Bush encroachment has also been shown to have a

positive impact on the savanna ecosystem, which is not

widely acknowledged. Pastoralists in Africa have indi-

cated that woody plants contribute significantly towards

livestock feed, especially during drought periods

(Moleele 1998; Kgosikoma et al. 2012a), thereby reduc-

ing the cost of supplementary feed. Yet, most grazing

policies in Africa do not consider browse plants, when

determining grazing capacity of a particular land. In

addition, leguminous woody vegetation can improve soil

quality through nitrogen fixation and could also contrib-

ute significantly towards carbon sequestration. That not-

withstanding, there is a consensus between pastoralists

and ecologists that the uncontrolled shift from grass-

dominated savanna to a bush savanna ecosystem has a

negative impact on sustainability of the savanna ecosys-

tem as a whole.

Despite bush encroachment being observed in many

grasslands and savannas in Africa and elsewhere, the

mechanisms that promote it are not clearly understood

(Ward 2005). Several factors, such as overgrazing, fire

frequency, soil moisture, nutrients and global warming,

have been associated with bush encroachment (van

Auken 2009) but it is still controversial how each factor

contributes to increased woody plant cover. Probably it

will be difficult to attribute a single factor as the sole

cause of bush encroachment (van Auken 2009), especial-

ly as most environmental factors are spatially correlated

(Hernandez-Stefanoni et al. 2011). In this paper, com-

monly cited causes of bush encroachment are briefly

reviewed and an integrated approach proposed for under-

standing causes of bush encroachment and sustainable

management of savanna ecosystems.

Causes of bush encroachment

Suppression of fire

Regular burning suppresses woody plant growth by

destroying the shrubs and juvenile trees and thus pre-

vents their development into mature woody plants,

which will be resistant to fire and be out of reach for

browsers (Mphinyane et al. 2011). However, policy

makers in Africa fail to recognize the importance of fire

as a management tool in savanna ecosystems and thus

prohibit burning of rangelands (Dalle et al. 2006). Sub-

sequently, pastoralists and ecologists argue that lack of

regular burning has allowed proliferation of woody

vegetation (Kgosikoma et al. 2012a). Therefore, fire

should be an integral part of management of savanna

ecosystems.

In addition, savanna ecosystems are also overgrazed,

such that there is limited fuel load to allow frequent

burning at high intensity. Given the important role of

fire, it is necessary to establish sustainable burning in-

tervals (Fatunbi et al. 2008) and institutions that will

control regular burning of savanna ecosystems. Other-

wise, uncontrolled burning could increase pastoralists’

vulnerability to impacts of drought and increase release

of carbon into the atmosphere. Sustainable use of fire as

a management tool therefore requires knowledge of

future climatic conditions and the ability to minimize its

negative impact, e.g. air pollution and carbon loss.

Rainfall variability

Savanna ecosystems are generally water-limited and

subsequently bush encroachment is associated with

inter-annual rainfall variability (Angassa and Oba 2007).

In arid and semi-arid environments, the woody cover

and density tend to increase with increasing mean annual

precipitation (Sankaran et al. 2005). At the local scale,

unusually high annual rainfall in multi-years promotes

an increase in woody vegetation cover; encroacher plants

like Acacia mellifera require at least 3 years of succes-

sive good rainfall to recruit successfully (Joubert et al.

2008). Increased soil moisture availability, particularly

when there is limited competition from grasses, allows

woody plant seedlings to survive and grow into bush

thickets. By contrast drought, through restricted plant

growth, seed germination and increased competition for

limited water at high shrub densities, leads to death of

some plants (Roques et al. 2001) and thus reduces bush

encroachment. As a result, bush encroachment is a cyclic

natural phenomenon influenced by recruitment and death

of encroacher plants in response to rainfall patterns

(Wiegand et al. 2006).

Soil properties

Sankaran et al. (2005) demonstrated that woody cover is

negatively correlated with soil clay content. Thus, bush

encroachment is likely to occur in sandy soil with low

clay content as observed in the Kalahari sands of Bot-

swana as illustrated in Figure 1 (Kgosikoma et al.

2012b). A broad-scale analysis of woody cover in Afri-

can savannas also revealed that woody cover was nega-

tively associated with soil nitrogen and therefore, in-

creased nitrogen deposition may reduce bush encroach-

ment (Sankaran et al. 2008). In a similar study, it was

observed that woody cover had a complex and non-

linear relationship with total soil phosphorus (Sankaran

et al. 2008). On the contrary, other authors have indicat-

ed that soil type had no significant impact on shrub

dynamics in African savannas (Roques et al. 2001).

Understanding bush encroachment in African savannas 217


Figure 1. Relationship between woody cover and soil clay

content across savanna ecosystems of Botswana (Kgosikoma

et al. 2012b).

Overgrazing

In Africa, most rangeland degradation, including bush

encroachment, is associated with high cattle density

around the boreholes and kraals (van Vegten 1981;

Moleele and Perkins 1998). This thinking is supported

by the declining density of encroacher plant species with

increasing distance from water sources along grazing

piospheres. In communal grazing lands of Botswana, the

bush encroachment zone has been observed between 0

and 300 m from foci (boreholes), where there is high

concentration of grazers (Moleele et al. 2002). The

possible explanation is that overgrazing suppresses the

dominance of grass species and favors the growth and

multiplication of woody species, because they then have

increased access to available soil moisture (Skarpe

1990). Grazing also indirectly contributes towards bush

encroachment through dispersal of encroacher plants’

seeds. Plants like Dichrostachys cinerea and Grewia

flava are highly palatable and are therefore largely con-

sumed by livestock and their seeds are deposited with

animal fecal material around boreholes and subsequently

recruited in high numbers in these areas. In contrast,

other studies have shown that grazing pressure is not

significantly related to bush cover (Oba et al. 2000).

Integrated approach needed to understand causes of

bush encroachment

Savanna ecosystems are complex and simple models that

focus on a single variable are not likely to help us under-

stand causes of bush encroachment, partly because there

will be confounding effects of other factors not account-

ed for in such studies. It is highly likely that the causes

of bush encroachment discussed above interact to facili-

tate the establishment and dominance of bushy vegeta-

tion as suggested by van Auken (2009). Therefore,

understanding causes of bush encroachment requires an

integrated approach that will ensure that both scientific

ecological and indigenous ecological knowledge are

applied (Sop and Oldeland 2011) as shown in Figure 2.

This approach also ensures that strategies adopted to

address the problem are economically, culturally and

environmentally suitable for the local conditions.

In the African context, there are limited long-term

ecological data and the indigenous ecological knowledge

on vegetation and other environmental changes accumu-

lated through long-term observation and land use

(Allsopp et al. 2007) could complement the scientific

knowledge by providing a long-term perspective on veg-

etation change and underlying causes (Bart 2006). Most

rangeland development projects have failed because they

focused on addressing the technological aspect, without

addressing the socio-economic factors (Squires et al.

1992). Therefore, the use of both scientific and indige-

nous ecological knowledge ensures that a common goal

is set and strategies (policy) adopted to curb bush en-

croachment also take into consideration the livelihood of

that particular community. New grazing policies need to

promote transparent decision making that is flexible to

changing circumstances, and embraces a diversity of

knowledge and values. Given that factors such as rainfall

and soil properties are not manipulative, management of

bush encroachment needs to focus on regulating grazing

pressure and optimum burning intervals.

Figure 2. Schematic outline to understanding bush encroach-

ment dynamics.

12111098765

Soil clay content (%)

Wo

od

y v

eg

eta

tio

n c

ov

er

(%)

R 58.7%2

R 54.6%[adj]2

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

13 1412111098765

Soil clay content (%)

Wo

od

y v

eg

eta

tio

n c

ov

er

(%)

R 58.7%2

R 54.6%[adj]2

R 58.7%2

R 54.6%[adj]2

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

13 14

218 O.E. Kgosikoma and K. Mogotsi


Conclusion

Bush encroachment is one of the most widespread forms

of land degradation in African rangelands and elsewhere.

Sadly, its exact causes are still one of the least under-

stood. Rural communities, the majority of whom are

dependent on range resources, will have to be assisted to

reverse bush encroachment or to adapt accordingly to the

new environment. Success in controlling bush en-

croachment requires improved understanding of under-

lying causes and an integrated approach provides an

opportunity to widen our knowledge on dynamics of

bush encroachment. There are few comprehensive stud-

ies, e.g. Sankaran et al. (2008), that investigate dynamics

of woody vegetation across broad environmental condi-

tions and therefore future research on bush encroach-

ment should include multi-variables.

References

Allsopp N; Laurent C; Debeaudoin LMC; Samuels MI. 2007.

Environmental perceptions and practices of livestock

keepers on the Namaqualand Commons challenge

conventional rangeland management. Journal of Arid

Environments 70:740−754.

Angassa A; Oba G. 2007. Effects of management and time on

mechanisms of bush encroachment in southern Ethiopia.

African Journal of Ecology 46:186−196.

Bart D. 2006. Integrating local ecological knowledge and

manipulative experiments to find the causes of

environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the

Environment 4:541−546.

Dalle G; Maass BL; Isselstein J. 2006. Encroachment of

woody plants and its impact on pastoral livestock

production in the Borana lowlands, southern Oromia,

Ethiopia. African Journal of Ecology 44:237−246.

Fatunbi AO; Johan MS; Dube S. 2008. Long-term effects of

different burning frequencies on the dry savannah grass-

land in South Africa. African Journal of Agricultural

Research 3:147−153.

Hernandez-Stefanoni JL; Dupuy JM; Tun-Dzul F; May-Pat F.

2011. Influence of landscape structure and stand age on

species density and biomass of a tropical dry forest across

spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 26:355−370.

Joubert DF; Rothauge A; Smit GN. 2008. A conceptual model

of vegetation dynamics in the semiarid Highland savanna

of Namibia, with particular reference to bush thickening

by Acacia mellifera. Journal of Arid Environments

72:2201−2210.

Kgosikoma O; Mojeremane W; Harvie BA. 2012a. Pastoral-

ists’ perception and ecological knowledge on savanna

ecosystem dynamics in semi-arid Botswana. Ecology and

Society 17(4):27. DOI: 10.5751/ES-05247-170427

Kgosikoma OE; Harvie BA; Mojeremane W. 2012b. Bush

encroachment in relation to rangeland management sys-

tems and environmental conditions in Kalahari ecosystem

of Botswana. African Journal of Agricultural Research

7:2312−2319.

Moleele NM. 1998. Encroacher woody plant browse as feed

for cattle. Cattle diet composition for three seasons at

Olifants Drift, south-east Botswana. Journal of Arid

Environments 40:255−268.

Moleele NM; Perkins JS. 1998. Encroaching woody plant

species and boreholes: Is cattle density the main driving

factor in the Olifants Drift communal grazing lands,

south-eastern Botswana? Journal of Arid Environments

40:245−253.

Moleele NM; Ringrose S; Matheson W; Vanderpost C. 2002.

More woody plants? The status of bush encroachment in

Botswana's grazing areas. Journal of Environmental

Management 64:3−11.

Mphinyane WN; Moleele NM; Sebego RJ. 2011. Effect of

burning interval on species composition, herbage yield

and bush control in the savanna of eastern Botswana.

Botswana Journal of Agriculture and Applied Science

7:96−106.

Oba G; Post E; Syvertsen PO; Stenseth NC. 2000. Bush cover

and range condition assessments in relation to landscape

and grazing in southern Ethiopia. Landscape Ecology

15:535−546.

Roques KG; O'Connor TG; Watkinson AR. 2001. Dynamics

of shrub encroachment in an African savanna: relative

influences of fire, herbivory, rainfall and density

dependence. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:268−280.

Sankaran M; Hanan NP; Scholes RJ; Ratnam J; Augustine DJ;

Cade BS; Gignoux J; Higgins SI; Le Roux X; Ludwig F;

Ardo J; Banyikwa F; Bronn A; Bucini G; Caylor KK;

Coughenour M; Diouf A; Ekaya W; Feral CJ; February

EC; Frost PGH; Hiernaux P; Hrabar H; Metzger KL; Prins

HHT; Ringrose S; Sea W; Tews J; Worden J; Zambatis N.

2005. Determinants of woody cover in African savannas.

Nature 438:846−849.

Sankaran M; Ratnam J; Hanan N. 2008. Woody cover in

African savannas: The role of resources, fire and herbi-

vory. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17:236−245.

Skarpe C. 1990. Shrub layer dynamics under different

herbivore densities in an arid savanna, Botswana. Journal

of Applied Ecology 27:873−885.

Sop TK; Oldeland J. 2011. Local perceptions of woody vege-

tation dynamics in the context of a ‘greening Sahel’: A

case study from Burkina Faso. Land Degradation and De-

velopment. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.1144

Squires VR; Mann TL; Andrew MH. 1992. Problems in im-

plementing range management on common lands in

Africa: An Australian perspective. Journal of the Grass-

land Society of South Africa 9:1−7.

van Auken OW. 2009. Causes and consequences of woody

plant encroachment into western North American

grasslands. Journal of Environmental Management

90:2931−2942.

van Vegten JA. 1981. Thornbush invasion in a savanna

ecosystem in Eastern Botswana. Vegetation 56:3−7.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05247-170427

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1144

Understanding bush encroachment in African savannas 219


Ward D. 2005. Do we understand the causes of bush

encroachment in African savannas? African Journal of

Range & Forage Science 22:101−105.

Wiegand K; Saltz D; Ward D. 2006. A patch-dynamics

approach to savanna dynamics and woody plant

encroachment − Insights from an arid savanna.

Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics

7:229−242.

© 2013








Identifying and addressing sustainable pasture and grazing

management options for a major economic sector – the north

Australian beef industry

NEIL D. MACLEOD1, JOE C. SCANLAN

2, LESTER I. PAHL

2, GISELLE L. WHISH

2 AND ROBYN A. COWLEY

3

1CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. www.csiro.au 2Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Toowoomba, Qld, Australia. www.daff.qld.gov.au

3Department of Resources, Katherine, NT, Australia. www.resources.gov.au

Keywords: Simulation modeling, grazing systems, stocking rate, economics, range condition, beef cattle.

Abstract

Sustainable use of Australia’s northern grazing lands is a long-standing issue for management and policy, heightened

by projections of increased climatic variability, uncertainty of forage supplies, vegetation complexes and weeds and

diseases. Meat & Livestock Australia has supported a large study to explore sustainable grazing management strategies

and increase the capacity of the sector to address climate change. Potential options were explored by bio-economic

modeling of ‘representative’ beef enterprises defined by pastoralists and supported by regional research and extension

specialists. Typical options include diversification, infrastructure, flexible stocking rates, wet season resting and pre-

scribed fire. Concurrent activities by another team included regional impact assessments and surveys of pastoralists’

understanding of and attitudes towards climate change and adaptive capacity. The results have been widely canvassed

and a program of on-ground demonstrations of various options implemented. The paper describes the structure of this

program and highlights key results indicating considerable scope to address sustainability challenges.

Resumen

El uso sostenible de las pasturas en el norte de Australia, mayormente sabanas arboladas, es un tema de manejo y

política de larga data, agudizado por las proyecciones de incremento de la variabilidad climática, la incertidumbre en el

suministro de forrajes, lo complejo de la vegetación, las malezas y las enfermedades. Meat & Livestock Australia, una

organización de ganaderos australiana, ha apoyado un amplio estudio para explorar estrategias de manejo sostenible y

aumentar la capacidad del sector para abordar los efectos del cambio climático. Las opciones potenciales se exploraron

mediante el modelamiento bioeconómico de empresas ganaderas ‘representativas’, definidas por los productores con el

apoyo de investigadores y extensionistas regionales. Las opciones típicas incluyen diversificación, infraestructura de

las pasturas, carga animal flexible, descanso del pastoreo durante la época de lluvias y quemas controladas. Activida-

des simultáneas desarrolladas por otro equipo de trabajo incluyeron evaluaciones del impacto regional y encuestas

sobre la percepción y actitud de los ganaderos respecto al cambio climático y su capacidad de adaptación. Los resulta-

dos han sido ampliamente divulgados y un programa demostrativo de varias opciones fue puesto en marcha. En el

documento se describe la estructura de este programa y se resaltan los resultados más importantes los cuales indican un

amplio margen para hacer frente a los desafíos de sostenibilidad.

Introduction

The north Australian grazing lands span ~2.3 Mkm2

and

carry ~14 M cattle. Resource heterogeneity, climatic ___________ Correspondence: Neil D. MacLeod, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences,

Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia.


variation and poor grazing management have caused

landscape degradation and reduced ecological services

(Tothill and Gillies 1993) and much research has been

invested in exploring sustainable management practices.

In 2009 Meat & Livestock Australia initiated the North-

ern Grazing Systems (NGS) project, to identify and

extend sustainable herd and land management strategies

for 9 major bio-regions, involving: (1) scientific reviews

http://www.csiro.au/

http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/

http://www.resources.gov.au/

221 N.D. MacLeod, J.C. Scanlan, L.I. Pahl, G.L. Whish and R.A. Cowley


of past research; (2) regional pastoralist workshops to

explore options and define ‘representative enterprises’

for modeling; (3) bio-economic modeling of the impacts

the most promising ‘best bet’ options have on landscape

degradation and production, under current and projected

climate regimes; and (4) applied testing and extension of

the ‘best-bet‘ options. Concurrent activities included

assessments of regional impacts and pastoralists’ under-

standing of and attitudes to climate change and adaptive

capacity (Stokes et al. 2012). The bio-economic model-

ing component explored the production, resource

condition and financial implications of northern beef

enterprises adopting more promising strategies that were

revealed through the science review and pastoralist

workshop phases. Simulation of these strategies com-

bined a pasture and animal production model (GRASP)

with a dynamic beef herd economic model

(ENTERPRISE) calibrated to mimic representative beef

enterprises defined by the regional workshops.

Four herd and pasture management strategies were

explored in each region: (a) Stocking rates − fixed ver-

sus variable stocking rates; (b) Wet season pasture

spelling systems − variable paddock rotations, spelling

commencement and duration; (c) Prescribed fire for

woody vegetation control − fire regimes of varying

frequency, starting tree basal area etc.; and (d) Infra-

structure − strategic expansion and location of stock

waters, fencing etc. The modeling process is illustrated

with a comparison of fixed and variable stocking rates

strategies in the Fitzroy River region using a hypothet-

ical farm located at Duaringa, Queensland.

Methods

Overall NGS Process

The NGS strategy incorporated the following aspects:

(1) Formally review past research conducted across

northern Australia to identify central themes and under-

lying principles that might be applied to management in

the regions (McIvor et al. 2010); (2) Present strategies

built around these themes at workshops of pastoralists,

research and extension specialists in 9 agro-ecological

regions, and those of interest listed for further explora-

tion by simulation modeling of a representative beef

enterprise defined for each region; (3) Application of

bio-economic modeling to the selected strategies of

interest; (4) Canvass modeling results at a second series

of regional workshops and refine the scenarios where

appropriate. The workshop outcomes in conjunction

with the initial research review provided insight into

further research to fill knowledge gaps or follow through

on technical questions raised by the modeling effort; and

(5) Conclusions from the workshops and modeling pro-

cess were used to support on-property confirmation and

demonstration trials based on the most promising herd

and pasture management strategies for each region.

Bio-Economic Modeling

The modeling method and outcome are illustrated for 1

of the 9 regions, Fitzroy in central Queensland [full

details of all regions are presented in Scanlan and McIv-

or (2010)]. A representative beef enterprise, defined at a

workshop in Emerald in April 2009, is characterized as a

10 500 ha property located near Duaringa [23.71o

S,

149.67o E; 94 m asl; average annual rainfall (1885–2006)

= 704 mm, average annual rainfall (1980–2006) =

613 mm] comprising 15 paddocks of native and sown

pastures carrying ~1200 breeding cows and turning off

~600 kg/head slaughter bullocks. Starting paddock con-

dition varies from ‘B − good’ to ‘C − poor and

degraded’ as rated against a 4-category system (Chilcott

et al. 2003).

Pasture yield, annual carrying capacity and animal

liveweight gain for the management practices under

review are estimated for each paddock using the GRASP

pasture simulation model (McKeon et al. 1990). Annual

liveweight gain (kg/head/yr) is simulated as a function of

forage utilization and growing season length (green

days). Land condition impact is assessed through a com-

bination of % perennial grasses in the pasture sward and

grass basal area (Scanlan et al. 2011). Projected

liveweight gain and stocking rate for each paddock are

input to the ENTERPRISE herd economic model (Mac-

Leod and Ash 2001), that allocates the herd across the

15 paddocks. Herd fertility and mortality rates, which

underpin the herd population dynamics, are estimated

from the liveweight gain projections using regression

equations based on herd records from Swans Lagoon

Research Station (MacLeod and Ash 2001).

ENTERPRISE projects total animal numbers by sex and

age class, animal turnoff rates for each year of a simula-

tion trial and a range of profit metrics, including gross

margins, net profit and ranges for these measures. Simu-

lations of 25 years were run using climatic data for

Duaringa from 1986 to 2010.

Modeling example − fixed versus variable stocking rates

Declining pasture condition is typified by reductions in

% palatable perennial grasses, increases in annual

Sustainable grazing management strategies in north Australia 222


grasses and forbs and also the amount of bare ground

(McIvor and Orr 1991). Adopting conservative or flexi-

ble stocking rates is argued to be critical for sustainable

pasture management (McKeon et al. 1990). The example

simulation compares a fixed stocking rate strategy with 2

strategies that allow variation in annual stocking rate in

response to changing seasonal conditions and associated

forage availability. The ‘safe’ fixed stocking rate is set

for each paddock at the assessed long-term safe utiliza-

tion rate (~20–25%) of standing pasture dry matter at the

end of the growing season. The 2 variable strategies are

defined as seasonally responsive and constrained varia-

tion. The seasonally responsive strategy has a stocking

rate in each paddock set each year according to a safe

utilization rate of standing dry matter (20–25%) at the

end of the growing season and remains unchanged for

the following 12 months. The constrained variation

strategy allows no more than a 10% increase or 20%

decrease in stocking rate between individual years sub-

ject to annual safe utilization limits and an absolute limit

of 20% above or 40% below the stocking rate that is set

at the start of the simulation period. Comparisons were

made of simulation outputs for each paddock over the

25-year simulation period.

Results

The representative enterprise included 7 land/vegetation

types in 15 paddocks, 9 of which were in B condition

and 6 in C condition. The GRASP simulation results are

presented for one of the 15 paddocks and its constituent

land class − a cleared paddock comprising brigalow-

blackbutt (Acacia harpophylla-Eucalyptus cambageana)

vegetation type in B condition at the commencement of

the simulation.

Stocking rate

The fixed stocking rate is set in accordance with the safe

utilization rate estimated for the average rainfall of the

simulation run. The flexible stocking rates fluctuate

within the limits defined above. The 2 variable stocking

rate strategies decreased the carrying capacity of the

paddock by the end of the simulation period (Figure 1).

This is largely because of pasture damage caused by

holding excessive numbers of stock on pastures when

good rainfall years are followed by poor rainfall years

(Scanlan and McIvor 2010). The fixed stocking rate by

definition did not change over the simulation period.

Pasture condition

The impact of stocking rates on pasture condition as

measured by % composition of perennial grasses in

the sward is presented in Figure 2. The seasonally ad-

justed stocking rate strategies can potentially reduce

cattle numbers when forage availability is low, and

reduce overgrazing risk. However, all 3 strategies over-

shot animal numbers early in the simulation period, with

subsequent decline in % perennials (Figure 1). The

more restrictive constrained strategy, unlike the season-

ally constrained strategy, prevented sufficient reduction

in cattle numbers to stop serious pasture damage, which

led to a longer recovery at the end of the simulation

(Figure 2).

Figure 1. Projections of annual carrying capacity for 3 stocking rate strategies on B condition cleared brigalow-blackbutt pasture,

Duaringa (1986–2010). *1 Adult Equivalent (AE) = 455 kg beast.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

Annual R

ain

fall (m

m)

Sto

ckin

g R

ate

(ha/A

E*)

Rainfall

Fixed

Constrained variation Seasonally responsive

223 N.D. MacLeod, J.C. Scanlan, L.I. Pahl, G.L. Whish and R.A. Cowley


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

% p

ere

nnia

ls

Fixed

Constrained variation

Seasonally responsive

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

Liv

ew

eig

ht

gain

(kg/h

a)

Fixed

Constrained variation

Seasonally responsive

Figure 2. Projections of % perennials for 3 stocking rate strategies on B condition cleared brigalow-blackbutt pasture, Duaringa

(1986–2010).

Figure 3. Projections of liveweight gain per hectare for 3 stocking rate strategies on B condition cleared brigalow-blackbutt

pasture, Duaringa (1986–2010).

Animal production

The ‘safe’ fixed stocking rate maintained pasture condi-

tion better than the variable strategies, producing higher

average liveweight gains per hectare at the end of

the period (Figure 3). The variable stocking strategies

generally yielded higher gains at the beginning of

the simulation, when pasture conditions improved

(Figures 2 and 3). The seasonally responsive strategy

outperformed the constrained variation strategy as ani-

mal numbers were adjusted more rapidly in the face of

changing conditions.

Profit

The safe fixed stocking rate strategy produced the high-

est annual average profit (total revenue minus total

costs), followed by seasonally responsive and constrain-

ed variation strategies (Table 1). Fixed stocking had the

highest minimum profit and the fewest years when profit

Sustainable grazing management strategies in north Australia 224


Table 1. Estimated annual total profit (AU$) for 3 stocking

rate management strategies on the representative Duaringa

enterprise (mean values for simulation period 1986–2010).

Fixed stocking rate Constrained

variation

Seasonally

responsive

Average $204 401 $77 370 $135 536

Minimum -$64 425 -$183 421 -$313 983

Maximum $490 670 $346 240 $743 838

Negative years 3 8 11

was negative. As stocking rate flexibility increased, the

number of years when annual profit was negative tended

to increase.

Discussion

The results are presented to illustrate the utility of the

NGS approach. For the Duaringa example, the projected

responses for carrying capacity, resource condition,

animal production and profitability for the 3 stocking

rate options revealed that the ‘extremes’ of the flexibility

strategies were generally the most profitable under the

climatic conditions between 1986 and 2010. The results

are highly context-dependent and reflect a combination

of the stocking rate strategies, land/vegetation types,

land condition and climatic conditions at the time of the

simulation trial. The results from each of the regional

simulations were endorsed at subsequent workshops and

the insights for the various strategies, i.e. stocking rates,

seasonal resting, prescribed fire, have been incorporated

into local extension materials and on-farm demonstra-

tions. The herd and land management strategies have

been explored under different climatic sequences in the 9

regions, including under projected climate change, to

seek scope for enhanced forecasting to inform manage-

ment.

Conclusion

The NGS process which includes the simulation of

‘representative’ grazing enterprises constructed around a

process of science review and local pastoralist consensus

offers considerable scope for defining sustainable land

management practices with both economic potential and

high levels of producer ownership. The results presented

offer only a limited insight into the full potential of the

models to explore management options in detail. The

simulation modeling approach offers a useful alternative

to trials for screening large numbers of management

options and strategies for future application in research

or practice.

Acknowledgments

The NGS project was funded as Meat & Livestock Aus-

tralia project B.NBP.0578. The assistance of DAFF beef

extension officers and landholders from the Fitzroy

region is appreciated.

References Chilcott CR; McCallum BS; Quirk MF; Paton CJ. 2003. Grazing land

management education package workshop notes − Burdekin.

Meat & Livestock Australia Limited, North Sydney, NSW,

Australia.

MacLeod ND; Ash AA. 2001. Oceans to Farms Project Report No. 6.

CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation), Brisbane, Qld, Australia.

McIvor JG; Orr DM. 1991. Sustaining productive pastures in the

tropics. 3. Managing native grasslands. Tropical Grasslands

25:91−97.

McIvor JG; Bray SG; Grice AC; Hunt LP. 2010. Grazing manage-

ment guidelines for northern Australia: Scientific rationale and

justification. In: McIvor JG, ed. Final Report MLA Project

NBP.0579. Meat & Livestock Australia Limited, North Sydney,

NSW, Australia. p. 10−205.

McKeon GM; Day KA; Howden SM; Mott JJ; Orr DM; Scattini WJ;

Weston EJ. 1990. Northern Australian savannas: Management

for pastoral production. Journal of Biogeography 17:355−372.

Scanlan JC; McIvor JG. 2010. Enhancing adoption of best practice

grazing management in northern Australia. Final Report: Caring

for Our Country Project OG084273. Meat & Livestock Australia

Limited, North Sydney, NSW, Australia. .

Scanlan JC; Whish GL; Pahl LI; Cowley RA; MacLeod ND. 2011.

Assessing the impact of pasture resting on pasture condition in

the extensive grazing lands of northern Australia. In: Chan F;

Marinova D; Anderssen RS, eds. Proceedings of MODSIM2011,

19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Mod-

elling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand,

Perth, WA, Australia . p. 877−883.

Stokes C; Marshall N; MacLeod N. 2012. Final Report MLA NBP

Project 0617. Meat & Livestock Australia Limited, North

Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Tothill JC; Gillies C. 1993. The pasture lands of northern Australia.

Their condition, productivity and sustainability. Occasional Pub-

lication No. 5. Tropical Grassland Society of Australia,

Brisbane, Qld, Australia.

© 2013








Forages improve livelihoods of smallholder farmers with beef cattle

in South Central Coastal Vietnam NGUYEN XUAN BA

1, PETER A. LANE

2, DAVID PARSONS

3, NGUYEN HUU VAN

1, HO LE PHI KHANH

1,

JEFF P. CORFIELD3

AND DUONG TRI TUAN4

1Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry, Hue, Vietnam. www.hueuni.edu.vn

2Tasmanian

Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia. www.tia.tas.edu.au

3Corfield Consultants, Wulguru, Qld, Australia.

4Research and Development Centre for Animal Husbandry, Qui Nhon, Binh Dinh, Vietnam.

Keywords: Tropical grasses, DM yield, crude protein, feed quality, Stylosanthes.

Abstract

In South Central Coastal Vietnam, on-farm research and farmer experience demonstrated the benefits of growing improved

forages as a means of improving the year-round quantity and quality of feed available for smallholder beef cattle produc-

tion. In Binh Dinh, Phu Yen and Ninh Thuan provinces, 5 new forage species (Panicum maximum cv. TD58, Brachiaria

hybrid cv. Mulato II, Pennisetum purpureum cv. VA06, Paspalum atratum cv. Terenos and Stylosanthes guianensis cv.

CIAT 184) were evaluated for yield and crude protein concentration. There was no consistent yield difference between

locations for the forage grasses, but in Binh Dinh province P. maximum TD58 produced the highest yield. The grasses were

comparable in crude protein concentration. Stylo CIAT 184 produced much less forage than the grasses but had a much

higher crude protein concentration. All species have potential use, depending on the circumstances and site factors such as

fertility, drainage and availability of irrigation. This work was expanded to a total of 45 farmers to gain feedback on farmer

experience in growing different forages. The percentage of farmers who “liked” the introduced forages was Mulato II,

92%; TD58, 85%; VA06, 82%; Paspalum, 46%; and Stylo, 36%. By far the most important early socio-economic impact of

developing perennial forage plots close to households was an average 50% reduction in the amount of labor and time that

farmers spend supplying cut-and-carry forage to their animals. In addition, the growing of forages can meaningfully reduce

the grazing pressure on common grazing lands, thereby lowering the potential for environmental degradation.

Resumen

En la región Costa Central del Sur de Vietnam, la investigación en fincas y la experiencia de los productores han demostra-

do los beneficios de forrajes mejorados para una mayor producción, durante todo el año, de alimento de mejor calidad en

fincas de pequeños productores de ganado de carne. En las provincias Binh Dinh, Phu Yen y Ninh Thuan fueron evaluados

por producción y concentración de proteína cruda (PC) los cultivares: Panicum maximum cv. TD58, Brachiaria híbrido cv.

Mulato II, Pennisetum purpureum cv.VA06, Paspalum atratum cv. Terenos y Stylosanthes guianensis cv. CIAT 184. No se

encontraron diferencias consistentes en la producción de las gramíneas entre localidades; no obstante en la provincia Binh

Dinh, P. maximum TD58 presentó la más alta producción de forraje. Las gramíneas presentaron concentraciones similares

de PC. Stylo CIAT 184 produjo mucho menos forraje que las gramíneas pero su concentración de PC fue mucho más alta.

Todas las especies tienen un buen potencial de uso, dependiendo de las condiciones de fertilidad del suelo, el drenaje y las

facilidades de riego en cada sitio. El trabajo se extendió a 45 productores con el objeto de obtener retroalimentación respec-

to a las experiencias en el uso de estos forrajes a nivel de finca. Los porcentajes de aceptación (en paréntesis) de las

especies introducidas fueron: Mulato II (92%), TD58 (85%), VA06 (82%), Paspalum (46%) y Stylo (36%). El impacto ___________ Correspondence: Nguyen Xuan Ba, Hue University of Agriculture and

Forestry, 102 Phung Hung St, Hue, Vietnam.


http://www.tia.tas.edu.au/


226 Nguyen Xuan Ba, P.A. Lane, D. Parsons, Nguyen Huu Van, Ho Le Phi Khanh, J.P. Corfield and Duong Tri Tuan


socio-económico inicial más importante de la siembra de parcelas de forrajes perennes cercanas a las viviendas ha sido la

reducción en 50% del uso de mano de obra y del tiempo invertido en las labores de corte y acarreo del forraje. Adicional-

mente, el cultivo de los forrajes puede reducir de manera significativa la presión de pastoreo sobre áreas de pastoreo

comunal y consecuentemente la degradación del ambiente.

Introduction

In Vietnam, beef cattle production has been a traditional

and important component of the smallholder farm system,

but feeding these livestock has been a major challenge and

a labor-intensive activity. Most of the available feed has

come from communal land, waste areas on roadsides and

around margins of crops, and from crop residues. A com-

bination of supervised grazing and cut-and-carry methods

has been and is still used by many smallholder farmers.

Beef production in Vietnam has increased steadily in

recent years, from approximately 100 000 t live weight in

2001 to 290 000 t live weight in 2011, in response to a

growing demand for beef due to an increasing population,

improvements in disposable income and a developing

tourism industry. The upward trend is likely to continue,

but it will depend upon appropriate Government policies

(on land use, credit loans and import tax/regulation), the

contribution of the research community to create new

technologies and higher quality products, and the efforts of

all stakeholders in the beef value chain.

There is a significant opportunity for smallholder crop-

livestock farmers in South Central Coastal Vietnam to

improve overall household income by changing the bal-

ance of their farming systems in favor of beef cattle.

However, the availability of labor and competition for

traditional feed resources, particularly communal grazing

land, are emerging as major impediments to farmers mak-

ing this change and progressing from cattle keepers to

cattle producers. This paper reports on research in South

Central Coastal Vietnam, highlighting the socio-economic

benefits to smallholder farmers and the environment of

introduced forages.

Current beef cattle production system

Smallholder cattle production methods vary across Binh

Dinh, Phu Yen and Ninh Thuan, 3 provinces in South

Central Coastal Vietnam, according to climatic factors,

available resources and production goals. The dominant

cow-calf breeding system has relied traditionally on exten-

sive grazing of common lands, especially in Ninh Thuan,

where farmers typically have larger herds and limited

access to other feed sources. In contrast, in Phu Yen and

Binh Dinh provinces, cow-calf farmers typically use a

mixture of grazing and stall-fed supplementation, mainly

with crop residues such as rice straw, plus some rice bran

and other feedstuffs, including cut-and-carry native grass

or King grass (Pennisetum sp.). Smallholder farmers en-

gaged in fattening male cattle or keeping males for draught

work are more likely to rely on intensive stall-feeding of

fresh grass, crop residues and concentrates. In a 2009

survey of cattle farmers, 41% of farmers in Binh Dinh and

Phu Yen practiced stall-feeding, whereas in Ninh Thuan

94% of farmers utilized grazing (either with or without

supplementation) (Parsons et al. 2013).

Development of the beef cattle industry in Vietnam has

been constrained by limitations in forage supply and qual-

ity. In recent years numerous high-yielding forage species

have been imported and evaluated for adaptation, biomass

yield and quality across Vietnam (Phan Thi Phan et al.

1999; Truong Tan Khanh 1999), but there is little evidence

of their widespread adoption by farmers. Improving

feeding options by utilizing locally available feed

resources and introducing new forages remains a key

strategy for improving beef cattle production (Nguyen

Xuan Ba et al. 2010).

Introducing new forages

Between May 2010 and December 2011 in Binh Dinh, Phu

Yen and Ninh Thuan, 5 new forage species, Panicum

maximum cv. TD58 (TD58), Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato

II (Mulato II), Pennisetum purpureum cv. VA06 (VA06),

Paspalum atratum cv. Terenos (Paspalum) and Stylos-

anthes guianensis cv. CIAT 184 (Stylo) were evaluated for

yield and feed quality. In each province 4 farms were

selected as trial sites (blocks) and planted with the 5 forage

species (treatments). Each plot was 5 x 1 m, with 0.5 m

between plots. King grass was grown as buffer rows to

separate the plots. An identical second set of plots was

provided at each farm so farmers could experiment. Each

site was managed in a similar manner, with regular inputs

of fertilizer plus irrigation in the dry season, to demon-

strate potential yields under typical farm conditions. The

first harvest was 60 days after establishment, with subse-

quent harvests at approximately 40-day intervals. Grasses

were harvested at a height of 15 cm and Stylo CIAT 184 at

20 cm. The mean daily temperature and mean annual

rainfall for Binh Dinh, Phu Yen and Ninh Thuan for the

previous 10 years were 27, 26 and 26 oC and 1710, 1540

and 1160 mm, respectively.

Forages impact in South Central Coastal Vietnam 227


Table 1. Yield and crude protein (CP) concentration of forage species in Binh Dinh, Phu Yen and Ninh Thuan provinces in South

Central Coastal Vietnam. Means within columns followed by different letters differ significantly (P<0.05) using Tukey’s test.

Species

Binh Dinh Phu Yen Ninh Thuan

Yield

(t DM/ha/yr)

CP

(%)

Yield

(t DM/ha/yr)

CP

(%)

Yield

(t DM/ha/yr)

CP

(%)

Mulato II 25.7 b 13.7 b 37.3 a 12.4 b 24.4 ab 10.6 b

Paspalum 27.2 b 10.7 b 42.1 a 9.5 b 38.6 a 6.9 d

TD58 40.0 a 12.1 b 50.3 a 10.9 b 33.9 a 9.5 c

VA06 26.4 b 12.1 b 39.4 a 10.3 b 39.0 a 8.3 cd

Stylo 11.5 c 17.5 a 17.0 b 17.9 a 15.8 b 14.7 a

s.e. 1.9 0.75 4.1 0.64 3.6 0.48

Forage yields for all species were relatively high and

similar to results from other regions in Vietnam (Table 1).

Site factors had a major effect on the total annual yield and

relative difference between species for each of the 3 prov-

inces. In Binh Dinh, the greatest yield was obtained from

P. maximum TD58, but there were no statistically signifi-

cant differences between the grasses in the other 2

provinces. Stylo CIAT 184 yielded relatively well but

much lower than the grasses, but persistence under regular

cutting was less than with the grasses. As expected, Stylo

CIAT 184 had a greater CP concentration (14.7–17.9%)

than the grasses. There was no significant difference be-

tween the grasses in CP concentration except in Ninh

Thuan province. All grass species were suitable for cultiva-

tion, and species selection should be based on factors such

as fertility, drainage, availability of irrigation and individu-

al requirements of the cattle feeding system.

On-farm forage development

The on-farm forage trials were led primarily by research-

ers, with limited farmer involvement. Subsequently, 15

farmers were selected in each province to test a range of

‘best-bet’ interventions under real farm conditions (Lisson

et al. 2010). With guidance from project staff, these farm-

ers concentrated on the introduction and establishment of

new forages (both grasses and legumes), improved man-

agement practices for existing and new forages, and more

effective utilization of other available feed resources. An

improved supply of forage was an important first step in

the best-bet process, due to its ability to make a rapid

impact at farm level, and also to provide a base for the

implementation of other cattle management techniques that

rely on improved nutrition, such as early weaning. Farmers

were provided with seed or tillers of the new forage varie-

ties to establish small nursery areas, then encouraged to

expand the area of those that they preferred. Group discus-

sions, workshops and individual household visits were

used to assess available resources, plus constraints to and

opportunities for increasing the productivity and profitabil-

ity of each farm. Farms were visited regularly to work

through technical issues, provide training in planting,

fertilizing, cutting management and feeding, and record

qualitative and quantitative data.

By the end of the project, 95% of the best-bet farmers

were using the improved forages and 90% had expanded

beyond their original planted area. By September 2012, the

average area of new forages planted by best-bet farmers

was around 200 m2 in Binh Dinh, 500 m

2 in Phu Yen and

600 m2 in Ninh Thuan. However, the area of forage grown

varied considerably between farmers and between provinc-

es as determined by the availability of land, the aspirations

of the individual farmers and the interest and support from

extension personnel. Forage preferences differed between

farms, and most farmers preferred 2 or 3 species. The

percentage of farmers who “liked” each of the introduced

cultivars was: Mulato II, 92%; TD58, 85%; VA06, 82%;

Paspalum, 46%; and Stylo CIAT 184, 36%. However,

these preferences did not necessarily translate into planting

by farmers; for example, Stylo CIAT 184 was rarely plant-

ed by farmers. Generally farmers with cow-calf systems

preferred Mulato II and TD58, because they appeared more

palatable and had higher leaf:stem ratios; however, farmers

operating fattening systems often preferred VAO6 because

it provided bulk to complement concentrate feeding.

Socio-economic impacts of forage development

Apart from improving available fresh forage supply and

quality, by far the most important early socio-economic

impact of developing perennial forage plots close to

households was an average 50% reduction in the amount of

labor and time that best-bet farmers now spend supplying

cut-and-carry forage compared with the time spent pre-

project. For example, a farmer from An Chan commune,

Phu Yen reported:

228 Nguyen Xuan Ba, P.A. Lane, D. Parsons, Nguyen Huu Van, Ho Le Phi Khanh, J.P. Corfield and Duong Tri Tuan


“I used to graze cattle 6 km from home because the

grass in the backyard was not enough for 5 cattle. My wife

also had to cut native grass along the dam and rice field,

which required 3–4 hours work per day. Now, I have 500

m2 of forage in my backyard; next year I will expand to

400 m2 of forage near my maize farm. My wife can reduce

cut-and-carry by 2 hours and I can reduce grazing time by

3 hours.”

The labor saved was used for a range of activities, in-

cluding crop production, other livestock management, off-

farm work, looking after children and grandparents and

housework. For instance, the daughter of another farmer at

An Chan commune, Phu Yen explained:

“When my mother had to go grazing cattle, I had to

cook the lunch. I sometimes went to school late and spent a

part of my learning time on cooking meals. But now, my

mother can cook meals for my family because she no long-

er needs to take the cattle grazing, and I can spend my time

learning.”

These stories illustrate that adaptation of technologies

often takes farmers in different and divergent directions.

Such stories are common throughout Southeast Asia (Con-

nell et al. 2010), and illustrate the potential socio-economic

benefits due to cultivation of high-quality forages, espe-

cially when grown close to households and cattle housing

facilities. Feedback from best-bet farmer interviews indi-

cated that they also benefited from more frequent

meetings, the sharing of forage planting material, accessing

information on cattle feeding, breeding, markets and pric-

es, and mutual support in techniques of forage and legume

planting. Although not all benefits are related directly to

new forages, these played an important role in creating the

impetus for other improvements.

Environmental impacts

By developing and promoting a system with a more relia-

ble year-round supply of forage, better control of grazing,

and a more effective use of local feeds, crop residues and

by-products, the risk of environmental damage from over-

grazing of common and waste land should decrease. This

environmental objective is becoming more critical as the

Vietnamese Government is in the process of developing

rules for use of forests and other common land, forcing

farmers off areas which have previously been freely avail-

able. Discussions with farmers have revealed that they see

this change as inevitable, that they understand the reasons

why cattle are being excluded from grazing in these areas,

and that more intensive land use for forage production is

desirable.

The sustainable production of viable quantities of feed

from introduced forages will require regular inputs of

nutrients, especially nitrogen, and irrigation. The timing

and rates of fertilizer and manure applications on forage

crops, particularly on sandy soils which predominate in the

South Central Coastal region, will require careful consid-

eration and management to avoid the risk of nutrient

leaching and runoff, with their negative environmental

effects.

Conclusions

Increasing population, improvement in disposable income,

urbanization, changing dietary preferences and a rapidly

developing tourism industry are factors that are driving the

demand for animal products in Vietnam. Beef production

is well placed to satisfy part of this demand, provided

smallholder crop-livestock farmers gain increased access

to feeding and management technologies, that can be

adapted to the smallholder mixed farming system. Better

knowledge about growing, managing and feeding new and

existing fresh forages, utilization of crop residues and use

of feed supplements will encourage greater intensification

of beef cattle production and increase supply of beef to

developing markets. Balanced intensification has the po-

tential to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers

and lessen the risk of ongoing environmental degradation

due to uncontrolled grazing and overgrazing of communal

land.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the funding support from the

Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

(ACIAR), plus the technical in-field assistance provided by

local Vietnamese agencies and farmers and commune

leaders for their willing participation and contribution to

the project.

References Connell J; Stür W; Horne P. 2010. Forages and farmers: Case studies

from South-East Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 142. ACIAR (Aus-

tralian Centre for International Agricultural Research), Canberra,

ACT, Australia, and CIAT (International Center for Tropical Agri-

culture), Vientiane, Laos.

Lisson S; MacLeod N; McDonald C; Corfield J; Pengelly B;

Wirajaswadi L; Rahman R; Bahar S; Padjung R; Razak N; Puspadi

K; Dahlanuddin; Sutaryono Y; Saenong S; Panjaitan T; Hadiawati

L; Ash A; Brennan L. 2010. A participatory, farming systems

approach to improving Bali cattle production in the smallholder

crop-livestock systems of Eastern Indonesia. Agricultural Systems

103:486–497.

Nguyen Xuan Ba; Nguyen Tien Von; Nguyen Huu Van; Ta Nhan Ai.

2010. Evaluation of biomass yield of cultivated grasses in different

ecological areas of Quang Tri province. NIAS −Journal of Animal

Science and Technology 22:52−59.

Forages impact in South Central Coastal Vietnam 229


Parsons D; Lane PA; Ngoan LD; Ba NX; Tuan DT; Van NH; Dung

DV; Phung LD. 2013. Systems of cattle production in South Cen-

tral Coastal Vietnam. Livestock Research for Rural Development

25, Article 25. www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/2/pars25025.htm Phan Thi Phan; Le Hoa Binh; Le Van Chung; Duong Quoc Dung;

Nguyen Ngoc Ha; Hoang Thi Lang; Le Van Ngoc; Nguyen Van

Quang. 1999. Productive characteristics and solutions to improve

seed yield of Panicum maximum TD 58. Proceedings of an animal

sciences workshop. NIAS (The National Institute of Animal

Sciences), Hanoi, Vietnam. p. 226−236.

Truong Tan Khanh. 1999. Research on adaptation of tropical forage

species in M’Drac and forage development in small households.

Proceedings of a national workshop on animal production and

veterinary health, 1998-1999, Hue, Vietnam.

© 2013




http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/2/pars25025.htm




Systematic management of stocking rates improves performance of

northern Australian cattle properties in a variable climate

LESTER I. PAHL

1, JOE C. SCANLAN

1, GISELLE L. WHISH

1, ROBYN A. COWLEY

2AND NEIL D. MACLEOD

3

1Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. www.daff.gov.au

2Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Darwin, NT, Australia. www.dpif.nt.gov.au

3CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. www.csiro.au

Keywords: Overgrazing, fixed stocking, flexible stocking, modeling study.

Abstract

The risks for extensive cattle properties in the rangelands of northern Australia arising from high inter-annual rainfall

variability are predominantly managed through adjustments in stocking rates (SR). This modeling study compared the

performance of SR strategies that varied considerably in the extent that they adjusted SR annually at 3 locations in

northern Australia. At all locations, land types and pasture condition states, the SR strategies that achieved the best

pasture condition were those that least increased and most decreased SR annually in response to changes in forage avail-

ability. At Donors Hill (Qld), these conservative strategies also achieved the highest cattle liveweight gains per hectare

(LWG/ha). While conservative strategies produced the highest percent perennial pasture species at Fitzroy Crossing

(WA), strategies which allowed larger increases and decreases in SR also performed well, enabling them to also achieve

high LWG/ha with little deterioration of pasture condition. A similar trend occurred at Alice Springs (NT), although at

this location the strategies with even larger annual increases and decreases in SR achieved relatively high percent peren-

nials and the highest LWG/ha. While systematic management of SR appears to perform better than a constant SR

strategy when rainfall variability is high, it is unclear if the magnitude of annual adjustments in SR needs to increase

with increasing rainfall variability.

Resumen

En las grandes extensiones de sabanas del norte de Australia los riesgos de la ganadería extensiva por la alta variabili-

dad interanual de las lluvias son manejados principalmente mediante el ajuste de la carga animal (SR, por su sigla en

inglés). Tomando como caso tres localidades del norte de Australia, en este estudio de modelado se compara el desem-

peño de estrategias de carga animal muy variada y anualmente ajustada. En las 3 localidades, los 2 tipos de tierra y las

3 condiciones de las sabanas, las estrategias de SR que resultaron en las mejores pasturas, fueron las que menos incre-

mentaron y más redujeron la SR como respuesta a los cambios anuales en la disponibilidad de forraje. Con estas

estrategias conservacionistas se obtuvo la mayor ganancia de peso vivo/ha en la localidad Donors Hill (Queensland) y

el mayor porcentaje de especies perennes en Fitzroy Crossing (Western Australia). En esta última localidad, estrategias

que implicaron incrementos y reducciones de la SR más altos, también fueron exitosas y resultaron en altas ganancias

de peso vivo/ha con poca degradación de las sabanas. Una tendencia similar se observó en Alice Springs (Northern

Territory); aquí, sin embargo, las estrategias que implicaron incrementos y reducciones anuales de la SR aún mayores,

resultaron en porcentajes relativamente altos de especies perennes y en ganancias de peso vivo/ha más altas. A pesar de

que el manejo sistemático de la SR aparentemente funciona mejor que una estrategia de SR constante cuando las llu-

vias son altamente variables, no es claro si la magnitud de ajustes anuales de la SR debe ser incrementada cuando la

variabilidad de la precipitación aumenta.

___________ Correspondence: Lester I. Pahl, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries

and Forestry, GPO Box 46, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia.


http://www.daff.gov.au/

http://www.dpif.nt.gov.au/

http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Ecosystem-Sciences

231 L.I. Pahl, J.C. Scanlan, G.L. Whish, R.A. Cowley and N.D. MacLeod


Introduction

Annual forage growth in the north Australian rangelands

is predominantly driven by rainfall (McKeon et al.

1990). High annual variability in the supply of forage for

livestock has significant implications for pasture condi-

tion and cattle productivity, where adjustments in

stocking rate (head or adult equivalents per square kilo-

meter) are the main means of managing these risks. Two

broad approaches can be used to manage SR: fixed

stocking (a constant SR); and flexible stocking (SR

varying over time in response to changes in forage sup-

ply) (Buxton and Stafford-Smith 1996). A recent review

of SR strategies (Scanlan and McIvor 2010) concluded

that a constant light SR at close to the long-term carrying

capacity appeared to be the most profitable and least-

risky strategy, but acknowledged some variation in SR

may be required to account for poor seasons and to take

advantage of good seasons. The simulation study report-

ed here compared fixed stocking with a number of

flexible strategies, which vary greatly in the extent cattle

SRs are adjusted annually in response to changes in

forage availability.

Methods

The GRASP pasture and animal production model

(McKeon et al. 2000) was used to compare the perfor-

mance of SR strategies at 3 locations: Donors Hill (black

soil and tea-tree communities) in the Gulf region of

Queensland; Fitzroy Crossing (black soil and spinifex

communities) in the Kimberley region of Western Aus-

tralia; and Alice Springs (alluvial and mulga

communities) in the Northern Territory. Mean annual

rainfall, the percent coefficient of variation (%CV) for

annual rainfall and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)

index of rainfall variability (BOM 2013) for these loca-

tions are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Mean annual rainfall, %CV for annual rainfall

between 1890 and 2010, and BOM rainfall variability index

for Donors Hill, Fitzroy Crossing and Alice Springs.

Location Mean

(mm) %CV

BOM

Index

Donors Hill (Queensland –

Gulf country)

629 39 1.10

Fitzroy Crossing (Western Australia –

Kimberley)

543 36 0.90

Alice Springs (Northern Territory –

central Australia)

259 59 1.30

The simulated SR strategies differed in the extent

that SR could be adjusted annually in response to the

safe utilization of the forage present at the end of

the growing season (May). Fixed stocking did not allow

any change in SR, while full flexibility changed SR in

full proportion to changes in forage availability. A fur-

ther 54 strategies with intermediate levels of flexibility

were simulated. This included 6 core strategies, which

set different limits (5, 10, 20, 30, 50 and 70%) to the

extent that SR could be increased annually, providing

forage availability increased by at least these amounts.

Each of these core strategies was simulated with differ-

ent limits to the extent SR could be decreased annually

(5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80%), providing forage

availability decreased by at least these amounts.

At each location, each strategy was simulated on 2

land types (high and low productivity) with each in 3

initial pasture condition states (excellent, good and

poor). Strategies were simulated with the same SR for

each combination of land type and pasture condition

state. This SR was the fixed SR that maintained the

perennial grass content of pastures over the simulation

period (Scanlan et al. 2010). Strategies were simulated

for 20 different randomly chosen 30-year climate peri-

ods, commencing between 1890 and 1981. Climate

records were obtained from BOM (SILO 2011). The

average percentage perennial grass composition of pas-

tures (percent perennials) and the average cattle

liveweight gain per hectare (LWG, kg/ha) achieved for

the twenty 30-year climate periods were the values used

to compare strategies.

Results

The results of average percent perennials and average

LWG/ha achieved by SR strategies are shown for the

high productivity land type in good pasture condition at

each location. These demonstrate the main findings of

this simulation study. The values for percent perennials

achieved by the 6 core SR strategies at Donors Hill,

Fitzroy Crossing and Alice Springs are shown in Figures

1–3.

The highest values for percent perennials were

achieved by strategies that limited annual increases in

SR to 5% (Figures 1–3). The percent perennials declined

with higher permitted annual increases in SR. For each

core strategy, percent perennials increased with higher

permitted annual decreases in SR. Consistent with this,

the percent perennials achieved by full flexibility was

lower than that for the core strategies with high limits for

annual decreases in SR. These trends occurred for all

land types and pasture condition states at all locations.

Stocking rate management in northern Australia 232


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Perc

en

t P

ere

nn

ials

Upper Limit for Percent Annual Decrease in stocking rate

Fixed

5% Ann Inc

10% Ann Inc

20% Ann Inc

30% Ann Inc

50% Ann Inc

70% Ann Inc

Full Flex

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Perc

en

t P

ere

nn

ials


Fixed

5% Ann Inc

10% Ann Inc

20% Ann Inc

30% Ann Inc

50% Ann Inc

70% Ann Inc

Full Flex

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LW

G (kg

/ha

)


Fixed

5% Ann Inc

10% Ann Inc

20% Ann Inc

30% Ann Inc

50% Ann Inc

70% Ann Inc

Full Flex

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LW

G (kg

/ha

)


Fixed

5% Ann Inc

10% Ann Inc

20% Ann Inc

30% Ann Inc

50% Ann Inc

70% Ann Inc

Full Flex

Relative to the 60% perennial grasses achieved

by fixed stocking at each location, the percent perennials

achieved by the core strategies was lowest at Donors

Hill (Figure 1), moderate at Fitzroy Crossing (Figure 2)

and highest at Alice Springs (Figure 3). This is particu-

larly true for the core strategies, which had high

permitted annual increases in SR. It can be seen that the

percent perennials achieved by these strategies increased

Figure 1. Average percent perennials achieved by SR strate-

gies on black soil at Donors Hill.


gies on black soil at Fitzroy Crossing.


gies on alluvial soil at Alice Springs.

at the fastest rate and to the greatest extent as permitted

annual decreases in SR rose at Alice Springs (Figure 3),

followed by Fitzroy Crossing (Figure 2) and Donors Hill

(Figure 1).

Figures 4–6 show the average LWG/ha achieved by

the same strategies under the same conditions described

above for percent perennials. Again, the benchmark for

comparison of the performance of core strategies was the

LWG/ha achieved by fixed stocking at each location. At

Donors Hill (Figure 4), only the strategies, that limited

annual increases in SR to 5% and annual decreases in SR

to 30% or more, achieved a LWG/ha that was higher

than that achieved by fixed stocking. The LWGs/ha for

all other strategies were lower than fixed stocking, and

decreased with higher annual increases in SR. As such,

fully flexible stocking achieved the lowest LWG/ha of

all strategies.

Figure 4. Average LWGs/ha achieved by SR strategies on

black soil at Donors Hill.

At Fitzroy Crossing (Figure 5), all 6 core strategies

achieved LWGs/ha that were higher than that achieved

by fixed stocking, although this often required progres-

sively higher limits to annual decreases in SR.


black soil at Fitzroy Crossing.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Perc

en

t P

ere

nn

ials


Fixed

5% Ann Inc

10% Ann Inc

20% Ann Inc

30% Ann Inc

50% Ann Inc

70% Ann Inc

Full Flex

233 L.I. Pahl, J.C. Scanlan, G.L. Whish, R.A. Cowley and N.D. MacLeod


0

1

2

3

4

5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LW

G (kg

/ha

)


Fixed

5% Ann Inc

10% Ann Inc

20% Ann Inc

30% Ann Inc

50% Ann Inc

70% Ann Inc

Full Flex

This trend continued at Alice Springs (Figure 6),

where almost all strategies achieved a higher LWG/ha

than fixed stocking. The highest LWG/ha was achieved

by the strategy with a 70% limit for annual increases and

an 80% limit for annual decreases, and this was only

marginally higher than the LWG/ha for full flexibility.


alluvial soil at Alice Springs.

At Alice Springs, the strategies, which achieved the

highest LWGs/ha, had the highest limits for annual

increases and decreases in SR. In comparison, the strate-

gies with the lowest limit (5%) to annual increases

produced the highest LWG/ha at Donors Hill, while at

Fitzroy Crossing the core strategies with 10, 20 and 30%

limits to increases in SR achieved the highest LWGs/ha.

Conclusions

In this simulation study, the most consistent trend across

locations, land types and pasture condition states was

that the highest percent perennials was achieved by

strategies, which least increased and most decreased SR

annually in response to changes in forage availability. In

regions where wet season rainfall is highly variable, this

occurs because a SR, that is appropriate at the end of one

wet season, is maintained through until the end of the

following wet season. For example, if the SR is in-

creased substantially at the end of a high-rainfall wet

season, then it is likely that the following wet season

will have lower rainfall, resulting in over-grazing and

deterioration of pasture condition.

Given the success of this conservative approach to

managing SR, it could be expected that the percent

perennials achieved by strategies, which allow large

increases in SR, would decline as annual rainfall varia-

bility increases. However, this does not appear to be the

case. Alice Springs has the highest rainfall variance

indices (Table 1), yet the strategies that allowed the

highest annual increases in SR achieved the highest

percent perennials of all locations. Also, strategies which

allowed high increases in SR, achieved higher percent

perennials at Fitzroy Crossing than at Donors Hill, yet

Fitzroy Crossing has lower rainfall variability. It is likely

that there are interactions between SR strategies, average

annual rainfall and seasonal variation in pasture growth

on different land types, which could diminish correla-

tions between the annual rainfall variability and the

performance of SR strategies.

At Alice Springs, the highest LWG/ha was achieved by

strategies, which allowed the greatest increases and

decreases in SRs annually. Only these strategies could

increase SR quickly enough to benefit from the occa-

sional short periods of high pasture productivity, and

then lower them rapidly to limit pasture degradation.

Given that these strategies did not cause major declines

in percent perennials (pasture condition) at Alice

Springs, the high LWG/ha could be maintained over

time. At Donors Hill, these same strategies caused dete-

rioration in pasture condition, and hence the strategies,

which most limited (5%) increases in SR annually,

achieved the highest LWG/ha. At Fitzroy Crossing, the

highest LWG/ha was achieved by strategies with 10, 20

and 30% limits to increases in SR annually, although this

was to some extent at the expense of pasture condition.

As with percent perennials, the limits to annual adjust-

ments in SR needed to achieve the highest LWG/ha did

not appear to be correlated with differences in the rain-

fall variability of locations.

Acknowledgments

Funding was provided by Meat & Livestock Australia

and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forest-

ry’s “Australia’s Farming Future: Climate Change

Research Program”.

References

BOM. 2013. Rainfall variability map. Australian Government,

BOM (Bureau of Meteorology).

http://goo.gl/kDmGD2

Buxton R; Stafford-Smith M. 1996. Managing drought in

Australia’s rangeland: Four weddings and a funeral.

Rangeland Journal 18:292−308.

McKeon GM; Day KA; Howden SM; Mott JJ; Orr DM;

Scattini WJ; Weston EJ. 1990. Northern Australian sa-

vannas: Management for production. Journal of

Biogeography 17:355−372.

McKeon GM; Ash AJ; Hall WB; Stafford-Smith M. 2000.

Simulation of grazing strategies for beef production in

north-east Queensland. In: Hammer G; Nichols N; Mitch-

ell C, eds. Applications of seasonal climate forecasting in

Stocking rate management in northern Australia 234


agricultural and natural systems − The Australian experi-

ence. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. p.

227−252.

Scanlan J; McIvor J. 2010. Enhancing adoption of best prac-

tice grazing management in northern Australia: Phase one

– Integration and scenario testing. Caring for Our Country

Final Project Report OG084273. Meat & Livestock

Australia, North Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Scanlan JC; Whish GL; Pahl L; Cowley RA; MacLeod ND.

2010. The Northern Grazing Systems project: Estimating

safe stocking rate. In: Eldridge DJ; Waters C, eds. Pro-

ceedings of the 16th

Biennial Conference of the Australian

Rangeland Society, Bourke. Australian Rangeland Socie-

ty, Perth, WA, Australia. p. 1−6.

SILO. 2011. SILO climate data. The State of Queensland,

Department of Science, Information Technology, Innova-

tion and the Arts. Brisbane, Qld, Australia.

http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo/

© 2013








Lessons from silage adoption studies in Honduras

CHRISTOPH REIBER1, RAINER SCHULTZE-KRAFT

1,2, MICHAEL PETERS

2 AND VOLKER HOFFMANN

1

1Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. www.uni-hohenheim.de


Keywords: Dry season, farmer-to-farmer extension, forage conservation, participatory experimentation, tropical

forages.

Abstract

To date, silage adoption has been low in the tropics, particularly under smallholder conditions. Innovation and adop-

tion processes of silage technologies were promoted in drought-constrained areas of Honduras using a flexible, site-

specific and participatory research and extension approach. A total of about 250 farmers participated in training work-

shops and field days conducted in 13 locations. Smallholders successfully ensiled maize, sorghum and/or Pennisetum

spp., mainly in heap and earth silos, while adoption of little bag silage (LBS) was low. LBS proved useful as a demon-

stration, experimentation and learning tool. A ‘silage boom’ occurred in 5 locations, where favorable adoption condi-

tions included the presence of demonstration farms and involvement of key innovators, lack of alternative dry season

feeds, perceived benefits of silage feeding, a favorable milk market and both extension continuity and intensity. The

lack of chopping equipment was the main reason for non-adoption by poor smallholders. The study showed that, when

targeting production system needs and farmer demands, silage promotion can lead to significant adoption, including at

smallholder level, in the tropics. This experience could contribute to an increase in effectiveness and sustainability of

silage extension in similar situations elsewhere.

Resumen

Hasta ahora, la adopción de tecnologías de ensilaje ha sido baja en regiones tropicales, particularmente por pequeños

agricultores. Mediante procedimientos de investigación y extensión participativas, flexibles y adaptadas a condiciones

locales específicas, se promovieron procesos de innovación y adopción de tecnologías de ensilaje en zonas secas de

Honduras. Alrededor de 250 pequeños productores participaron en talleres de capacitación y días de campo implemen-

tados en 13 localidades. Como resultado ensilaron con éxito maíz, sorgo y/o Pennisetum spp., principalmente en silos

de montón y de tierra, mientras que la adopción de ensilaje en pequeñas bolsas (LBS, su sigla en inglés) fue baja. Sin

embargo, LBS demostró su utilidad como herramienta de demostración, experimentación y aprendizaje. Un ‘boom de

ensilaje’ se produjo en 5 localidades donde las condiciones de adopción fueron particularmente favorables, incluyendo

la presencia de granjas de demostración, la participación de innovadores clave, la falta de alternativas para la alimenta-

ción del ganado en la época seca, la percepción de beneficios de la alimentación con ensilaje, un mercado de leche

favorable, y un servicio de extensión continuo e intensivo. La falta de máquinas picadoras de forraje fue la razón prin-

cipal para la no-adopción por parte de los pequeños productores de bajos ingresos. El estudio demostró que cuando los

sistemas de producción lo necesitan y los productores lo demandan, la promoción del ensilado puede alcanzar un nivel

significativo de adopción también en zonas tropicales, incluyendo los pequeños productores. Esta experiencia puede

contribuir a incrementar la eficacia y sostenibilidad de la extensión de tecnologías de ensilaje en situaciones similares

en otros lugares.

Introduction

Adoption of silage technologies has been low in the

tropics and subtropics, especially by resource-poor

___________ Correspondence: Christoph Reiber, Universität Hohenheim (480),

70593 Stuttgart, Germany.


smallholders, because of lack of know-how, lack of fi-

nancial means and insufficient benefits and returns on

investment (Mannetje 2000). R&D needs to develop

strategies to enhance adoption of forage conservation

technologies by the poor. Innovative approaches to for-

age conservation with technologies such as little bag

silage (LBS) can get silage into smallholder farming and

livestock systems (Wilkinson et al. 2003).

http://www.uni-hohenheim.de/



236 C. Reiber, R. Schultze-Kraft, M. Peters and V. Hoffmann


This study was embedded in a research project con-

ducted by CIAT (Centro Internacional de Agricultura

Tropical) and the Honduran Directorate of Agricultural

Science and Technology (Dirección de Ciencia y

Tecnología Agropecuaria, DICTA) between 2004 and

2006. Silage making was promoted during farmer train-

ing workshops and field days in different drought-

constrained areas of Honduras (Reiber et al. 2010). Re-

search objectives of this study were to assess the adop-

tion, potential and constraints of silage, including little

bag silage (LBS).

Methods

A total of about 250 farmers participated in training

workshops and field days conducted in 13 locations.

Two extension strategies were applied: ‘promotion of

innovation’ (PI), characterized by stimulating acceptance

and adaptation processes among silage novices, in 7

locations; and ‘promotion of adoption’ (PA), character-

ized by scaling-out of site-adapted solutions through

farmer-to-farmer promotion, in 6 locations. Furthermore,

3 different extension intensities were distinguished ac-

cording to the number of training sessions and the pres-

ence of a technician to directly support farmers. LBS

technology was used as a learning tool to demonstrate

silage principles and experiment with adaptable technol-

ogy components.

Research methods comprised surveys based on struc-

tured questionnaires, participatory experimentation with

and evaluation of LBS, and organoleptic evaluation of

silage fermentation quality. Farms were classified ac-

cording to their herd size into small (1−20 head of cattle;

64 farmers), medium (21−50 head; 69 farmers), large

(51−100 head; 58 farmers) and very large (>100 head;

31 farmers). A further grouping was made into silage

adopters (farmers who made silage at least once and

intended to re-use/repeat the practice), non-adopters,

potential adopters (farmers who reliably intended to

adopt) and rejecters (farmers who made silage at least

once but decided to reject it). Data analysis included

descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests.

Results

Continuous silage promotion can lead to significant

adoption

As a result of the training and promotion activities, si-

lage was adopted by 53% of participants, of which 20,

26, 36 and 18% were from small, medium, large and

very large farms, respectively. Depending on the re-

search location, the strategy ‘promotion of innovation’

(PI) resulted in total adoption rates of 0−29%, with an

average of 19%. Adoption increases ranged from -5% to

24% between 2003/04 and 2006/07, with an average

increase of about 9%. In contrast, ‘promotion of adop-

tion’ (PA) resulted in total adoption of 13−79%, with an

average of 57%. Adoption increases ranged from -40%

to 57% between 2003/04 and 2006/07, with an average

increase of about 31%. The difference in total adoption

between the strategies was significant (P<0.05). With

respect to extension intensity, adoption increases were

12.5, 10.4 and 32.7% for low, medium and high exten-

sion intensity, respectively.

In the area of Yoro, where silage was promoted under

strategy PA and high intensity in 4 locations, the total

number of adopters increased from 11 farmers in

2002/03 to 102 farmers in 2006/07. The proportions of

all livestock keepers making silage reached 23% in Yo-

ro, 36% in Yorito, 41% in Sulaco and 37% in Victoria.

The proportion of small-scale farmers making silage

increased from 0% in 2003 to 16% in 2006/07. Lack of

feed during the dry season, the presence of key silage

adopters who experienced a positive effect of silage

(mainly from maize and sorghum) on livestock produc-

tion, improved milk market conditions, motivated farmer

groups, experienced and trained extension staff and con-

tinuous silage promotion were identified as contributing

to the dissemination of silage technology in the area. In

contrast, less adoption occurred where one or more of

the above-mentioned conditions was not met (Reiber et

al. 2010).

Increasing use of sorghum and Pennisetum spp. ensiled

in heap silos by smallholder silage novices

While in 2004 silage was made almost exclusively from

maize, 3 years later about 49% of the silage adopters

ensiled at least 2 different crops, with an increasing

share of sorghum: 66% ensiled maize, 61% sorghum,

20% cut-and-carry grasses (Pennisetum spp. ‘King

Grass’ or ‘Camerún’), 6% sugarcane, 4% Brachiaria

brizantha cv. Toledo and 4% cowpea (Vigna

unguiculata). Small-scale farmers ensiled relatively

more cut-and-carry grass than larger-scale farmers.

In 2007, the average area per farm dedicated to silage

production was 2.3 ha, with 1.7, 2.3, 2.7 and 3.0 ha for

small, medium, large and very large farms, respectively.

The average areas of maize, sorghum and cut-and-carry

grasses for silage were 1.2, 1.0 and 0.1 ha, respectively.

Small, medium and very large farms dedicated a larger

area to sorghum than to maize, whereas on large farms

the area of maize was more than twice the area of sor-

ghum. Maize and sorghum silage were generally of high

Silage adoption studies in Honduras 237


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Small

(N=18)

Medium

(N=22)

Large

(N=27)

Very Large

(N=14)

LBS

Heap

Earth

Bunker

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Victoria

(N=29)

Sulaco

(N=23)

Yorito

(N=16)

Yoro

(N=20)

Candelaria

(N=10)

Olancho/

El Paraíso

(N=39)

LBS

Heap

Earth

Bunker

quality and preferred to silages of other forages (Reiber

et al. 2010).

The share of adopted low-cost silos, such as

heap and earth silos, increased with decreasing

farm size, whereas the share of cost-intensive bunker

silos decreased (Figure 1). However, this did not

hold for very large farms, where more heap silos

were used than bunker silos. Preferences for specific

silo types differed with the location (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Silo types used by farm size categories.

Figure 2. Adoption of silo types in the different locations.

Heap silos, the most adopted silo type (41%), were

mainly used by silage novices in Yoro, Olancho and

Jamastrán (El Paraíso) and were considered as

‘silo for the poor’.

LBS and its potential as a demonstration, experimenta-

tion and learning tool

Little bag silage was adopted by only about 5% of farm-

ers. Main drawbacks were lack of suitable plastic mate-

rial in rural areas and high aerobic-spoilage losses, due

to perforation of plastic by rodents. Some advantages of

heap silage over bag silage were less risk of aerobic-

spoilage losses, lower cost per unit of silage, and no

need to invest in storage facilities (Reiber et al. 2010).

The most suitable LBS material was a tubular bag with a

plastic thickness of 152 µm (caliber 6). The use of a

mould (i.e. a plastic barrel) during bag silage preparation

was shown to make compaction easier, while protecting

the plastic bag from tearing and puncturing. The bag is

placed inside a vertically cut barrel, which is kept shut,

e.g. with ropes, during compaction and subsequently

opened to remove the bag.

Participatory experimentation with and evaluation of

LBS revealed that molasses as an additive in wilted

grass silage (T4) proved more effective for the reduction

of pH than other additives (T5 and T6) (Table 1). Farm-

ers’ assessments of smell and their preference ranking

were higher for all silages with additives than for those

without, irrespective of DM content. Farmers learned

that: (1) short wilting and the addition of sugar-

containing additives, especially molasses, improve fer-

mentation quality of grass silage; and (2) wilted silages,

although presenting a better smell, were more prone to

increased spoilage losses (Reiber et al. 2009).

Table 1. Participatory group experimentation with differently treated LBS of Brachiaria brizantha cv. Toledo.

Treatment Bags

(no.)

pH Spoilage losses (%) Smell

(1-5)1

Preference

ranking Value s.e. Range (average) s.e.

T1: unwilted, without additive 3 4.4bc2

0.03 0-10 (5) 3 2 6

T2: unwilted, with 6% molasses 4 4.5bc

0.07 0-7 (4) 2 4 3

T3: wilted, without additive 2 6.03 0.75 0-100 (50) 35 3 5

T4: wilted, with 6% molasses 4 3.9a 0.04 0-80 (32) 20 4 2

T5: wilted, with 20% sugar cane 4 4.7c 0.07 0-15 (5) 4 4 1

T6: wilted, with 6% sugar water 4 4.2b 0.73 10-100 (40) 21 3-4 4

11 = rotten, strong; 2 = bad; 3 = acceptable; 4 = good; 5 = very good.

2Values with different superscripts are different (P<0.05).

3T3 was excluded from test of significance between groups due to low number of bags and high spoilage losses.

238 C. Reiber, R. Schultze-Kraft, M. Peters and V. Hoffmann


Considering perceived benefits and farmer criteria for

silage adoption and rejection

Farmers perceived multiple benefits from silage, such as

an average 50% milk yield increase, improved body

condition, fertility and health of cows, increased feed

security, reduced risk of production losses, lower labor

requirements during the dry season, and a positive effect

on pasture recuperation and production because of re-

duced grazing pressure (Reiber et al. 2010).

The most frequently mentioned reason for adoption

was the lack of dry season feed and the subsequent risk

of livestock production losses (29%). Further motivating

factors were neighboring farmers, who had already

adopted and promoted the use of silage (15%), and an

innovative extensionist, who himself was a prototype

farmer and provided technical assistance (12%). The

most frequently mentioned reasons for non-adoption of

silage-making by smallholders were ‘non-availability of

a chopper’ (46%) and ‘lack of money coupled with high

costs’ (25%).

Discussion

A limitation in silage production is the lack of experi-

ence and sufficient understanding of silage-making prin-

ciples, not only by farmers but also by extensionists

(Froemert 1991). This becomes especially important

when forages low in DM and water-soluble carbohy-

drates are to be ensiled. Using LBS technology as a

demonstration and learning tool proved effective for

teaching basic technological principles such as chop-

ping, proper compaction and sealing within the course of

a one-day farmer training or field day (‘learning by do-

ing’) and for demonstrating the impact of various silage-

processing practices (e.g. wilting, silage additives) on

silage quality. As experienced during this study, the use

of LBS as an introductory silage system led to adapta-

tions and adoption of earth, heap and bunker silos in

several cases.

Besides the requirements of quality plastic bags,

proper compaction and air-tight sealing, silage bags need

to be protected from animals and direct sunlight to en-

sure success. Rats and mice were also reported as prob-

lems by Lane (2000). Therefore, some form of protec-

tion is recommended, either within an existing store, or

in a specialized building, e.g. on stilts (Lane 2000). An

inexpensive and handy storage alternative is to bury the

bags in a pre-dug trench as described by Otieno et al.

(1990); this would assist in maintaining anaerobic condi-

tions, compaction and lower temperatures.

The main constraint to silage adoption for resource-

poor smallholders, i.e. lack of a chopper, could be over-

come by its cooperative purchase, administration and use

(Wilkins 2005). In his review of reasons for non-

adoption of silage making in countries such as Pakistan,

India and Thailand, Mannetje (2000) pointed out that

cost, trouble and effort of silage making did not provide

adequate returns and benefits, and concluded that tech-

nology of any kind will be adopted only if it can be part

of production systems that generate income. In this

study, farmers experienced an increase in milk yields as

a result of feeding high quality silage, mainly from

maize and sorghum, to crossbred cows.

The successful and sustained use of silage may re-

quire more time and effort than are allocated in most

development projects and programs. Farmer motivation

and participatory technology experimentation, evaluation

and development are particularly important in areas

where silage is less known. Thereby, farmer constraints

and objectives should be linked to the purposes and ob-

jectives of silage making. Establishing the basis for wid-

er silage adoption (i.e. identifying and training leader

farmers) may last 2 years. Development projects should

not stop at this stage but should scale-out adapted and

efficient silage technologies through demonstrations and

exchange of experiences using an integrated and partici-

patory approach involving smallholders as well as larg-

er-scale farmers.

Conclusion

The study showed that promotion of silage, including

LBS, can lead to significant adoption in environments

where: (1) seasonal lack of feed in drought-prone areas

(that is, with more than 4.5 dry months) causes great

production losses (e.g. reduced milk production); and (2)

organized and motivated farmers with market-oriented

dairy production exist or are emerging. LBS proved use-

ful and could play an important role in participatory

research and extension activities, as a demonstration,

experimentation and learning tool that can be used to

train basic technological principles and to get small-scale

silage novices started with a low-risk technology. This

experience could contribute to an increase in effective-

ness and sustainability of silage extension in similar

situations elsewhere.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support

by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and

Development (BMZ)/GTZ (now GIZ, Deutsche

Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit). Sin-

cere thanks to the late Ing. Conrado Burgos (DICTA)

and the late Ing. Heraldo Cruz (CIAT/DICTA).

Silage adoption studies in Honduras 239


References

Froemert RW. 1991. Training in the development of feed

resources. In: Speedy A; Sansoucy R, eds. Feeding dairy

cows in the tropics. FAO Animal Production and Health

Paper No. 86. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations), Rome, Italy. p. 236–244.

Lane IR. 2000. Little bag silage. In: Mannetje L ‘t, ed. Silage

making in the tropics, with particular emphasis on small-

holders. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper No.

161. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations), Rome, Italy. p. 79–83.

Mannetje L ‘t. 2000. Summary of the discussion. In: Mannetje

L ‘t, ed. Silage making in the tropics, with particular em-

phasis on smallholders. FAO Plant Production and Protec-

tion Paper No. 161. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organiza-

tion of the United Nations), Rome, Italy. p. 173–175.

Otieno K; Onim JFM; Mathuva MN. 1990. A gunny-bag en-

siling technique for small-scale farmers in Western Kenya.

In: Dzowela BH; Said AN; Wendem-Agenehu A; Kategile

JA, eds. Utilization of research results on forage and agri-

cultural by-product materials as animal feed resources in

Africa. Proceedings of the first joint workshop held in Li-

longwe, Malawi, 5–9 December 1988. ILCA (International

Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. p.

664–685.

Reiber C; Schultze-Kraft R; Peters M; Hoffmann V. 2009.

Potential and constraints of little bag silage for small-

holders – Results and experiences from Honduras. Exper-

imental Agriculture 45:209–220.

Reiber C; Schultze-Kraft R; Peters M; Lentes P; Hoffmann V.

2010. Promotion and adoption of silage technologies in

drought-constrained areas of Honduras. Tropical Grass-

lands 44:231–245.

Wilkins RJ. 2005. Silage: A global perspective. In: Reynolds

S; Frame J, eds. Grasslands: Developments, opportunities,

perspectives. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations), Rome, Italy. p. 111–132.

Wilkinson M; Bolsen KK; Lin CJ. 2003. History of silage. In:

Buxton DR; Muck RE; Harrison JH, eds. Silage science

and technology. American Society of Agronomy Inc.,

Crop Science Society of America Inc., Soil Science Socie-

ty of America Inc., Madison, WI, USA. p. 1–30.

© 2013








Grasslands in India: Problems and perspectives for sustaining

livestock and rural livelihoods

AJOY K. ROY AND JAI P. SINGH

Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, UP, India. www.igfri.res.in

Keywords: Grazing land, pastoralism, nomadic pastoralism, grazing resources, mixed farming.

Abstract In India, grazing-based livestock husbandry plays an important role in the rural economy as around 50% of animals depend

on grazing. Pasturelands over an area of 12 Mha constitute the main grazing resources that are available. Temperate/alpine

pastures are spread across elevations higher than 2000 m in the Eastern and Western Himalayas including the Jammu &

Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim states. Nearly 30 pastoral commu-

nities in hilly or arid/semi-arid regions in northern and western parts of India, as well as 20 in temperate/hilly regions,

depend on grazing-based livestock production. Due to overgrazing coupled with poor management and care, these grazing

lands have deteriorated to a large extent and need amelioration or rehabilitation. Appropriate technologies have been devel-

oped, refined and tested in various research and academic institutions. These technologies need to be implemented on a

large scale in different parts of the country for augmenting forage resources, enhancing livestock production and sustaining

livelihood options in an eco-friendly manner.

Resumen

En la India, la ganadería basada en pastizales juega un importante papel en la economía rural, ya que el 50% de los anima-

les depende del pastoreo. Las áreas de pastoreo abarcan 12 Mha y constituyen el principal recurso para la ganadería. Los

pastizales de zonas templadas/alpinas se encuentran a alturas >2000 m.s.n.m. en las regiones este y oeste del Himalaya,

incluyendo los Estados de Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh y Sikkim.

Aproximadamente 30 comunidades de pastores en regiones de ladera o zonas áridas/semi-áridas en el norte y oeste de

India, y 20 en zonas templadas y/o topografía pendiente dependen de la ganadería basada en pastoreo. Debido al sobrepas-

toreo acompañado de mal manejo, los pastizales se han degradado y requieren prácticas de rehabilitación. En varias

instituciones de investigación se han desarrollado y probado tecnologías apropiadas que deben ser implementadas a gran

escala en varias regiones del país, con el objeto de aumentar, en forma amigable con el medio ambiente, los recursos forra-

jeros para mayor producción pecuaria y mejor calidad de vida de las comunidades rurales.

Introduction

In India, agriculture is characterized by the traditional

predominance of a mixed farming system, a well-knit

combination of crop production and livestock rearing.

Livestock rearing is a major source of income providing

employment and livelihoods for rural families. Livestock

production is the backbone of Indian agriculture, contrib-

uting 4% to national GDP and providing a source of

employment and the ultimate livelihood for 70% of the

population in rural areas.

___________

Correspondence: Ajoy K. Roy, Indian Grassland and Fodder Research

Institute, Jhansi – 284003, UP, India.


India’s livestock sector is one of the largest in the

world, with a livestock population around 623 M, which is

expected to grow at a rate of 0.55% in the coming years.

India has 56.7% of the world’s buffaloes, 12.5% of the

cattle, 20.4% of the small ruminants, 2.4% of the camels,

1.4% of the equines, 1.5% of the pigs and 3.1% of the

poultry. The livestock population, over the years, has

shown a steady growth on 2 broad fronts, namely: (i) in the

number of stall-fed bovine livestock, including buffaloes

and crossbred cows, owned mainly by people with arable

land and resources to grow or procure green fodder; and

(ii) in the number of small ruminants like goats and sheep,

surviving mainly by free grazing the available pasture

lands and tree foliage (Anon. 2011).

This latter category is the topic of this paper. Uncon-

trolled grazing is the basis of grazing systems of resource-

http://www.igfri.res.in/

241 A.K. Roy and J.P. Singh

poor households, landless pastoralists, nomadic and semi-

nomadic tribes and marginal farmers. Between 84 and

100% of poor households gather food, fuel, fodder and

fiber items from the ‘common property grazing resources’

(CPRs). These landless farmers graze their animals on, as

well as collect fodder from, the CPRs. In this paper we

describe work to: survey and update the distribution of the

main grassland types of India; define the current grazing

methods; summarize the overall state of the grassland-

livestock systems; and propose action to rehabilitate grass-

land areas.

Methods

A reconnaissance survey of the grasslands of India was

conducted from 1954 to 1962, revealing 5 major ecosys-

tems based on vegetation composition and distribution,

primarily governed by climatic factors, latitude, elevation,

topography and seasonal patterns of soil moisture

(Dabadghao and Shankaranarayan 1973). The 5 types

were: Sehima - Dichanthium grasslands; Dichanthium -

Cenchrus - Lasiurus grasslands; Phragmites - Saccharum -

Imperata grasslands; Themeda - Arundinella grasslands;

and temperate/alpine grasslands.

Several previous studies and reports (Shankarnarayan

and Shankar 1984; Singh et al. 1997; Pandeya 2000;

Tambe and Rawat 2009) were used to draw conclusions for

this paper. In recent studies (Singh et al. 2009; 2011), the

monitoring and mapping of grasslands of the Himalayan

region (Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Jammu and Kashmir

states) during 2007−12 with modern tools and techniques,

viz. GIS, RS, GPS and FSGT, were used in conjunction

with ground-truthing to assess the extent of grasslands and

their productivity.

Grassland areas

Hill region

In Himachal Pradesh (IRSP6L3 20081), grasslands occur

on 16.5% of the total area, occupying 15.3, 21.6, 18.0 and

15.3% of geo-climatic zones 1 (Low hill subtropical),

2 (Mid-hill subhumid), 3 (Mid-hill temperate wet) and

4 (High hill temperate), respectively. Forage production

from high hills was recorded as 4.0 t/ha/yr (fresh weight)

and 1.1 t/ha/yr (dry matter), with an average crude protein

concentration of 11.3% (Singh et al. 2009).

In Jammu and Kashmir (IRSP6L3 2009 and 2010 data),

4.3% of the total geographical area was under productive

grasslands, whereas the area of other grazing lands, includ-

ing scrub and other unpalatable swards, was 9.8% 1IRSP6L3 2008 = Indian Remote Sensing Satellite P6, Linear Imaging Self Scanning Band 3, Year 2008

of the total. The areas under productive grasslands in

Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh were 3.5, 13.2 and 5.8%,

respectively.

In Sikkim, the area under alpine pastures in the High

hill zone was 7.4% of total geographical area, whereas it

was 6.8% in the Mid-hill zone. About 36.5% of the total

pasturelands (14.1% of the total area) were in various

stages of degradation. About 44.6% of pasturelands at

different elevations and slopes in the Mid-hill zone were

susceptible to soil erosion/depletion and/or landslides.

Temperate/alpine and subalpine meadows

The Indian Himalaya system comprises various mountain

ranges which run parallel to each other, and contains a

tremendous diversity in ecology, terrain, elevation, cli-

mate, resource availability, ethnicity, agricultural activities,

flora and fauna. Steep topography, prolonged and severe

cold winters, shallow soils and lack of irrigation etc., have

limited the choice of agricultural activities, with livestock

rearing being one of the most important occupations in the

region. The temperate/alpine pastures are spread across

elevations higher than 2000 m in the Eastern and Western

Himalayas including Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pra-

desh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh and

Sikkim states. The alpine and subalpine meadows suffer

from general degradation, with an increasing incidence of

unpalatable species and erosion due to overgrazing. These

grasslands and pastures, besides being a major source of

forage for livestock, provide habitat for a large variety of

wild animals and birds, and for endangered species of

plants, many of which have an ethnobotanic value.

Tropical and subtropical grasslands

These are found mainly from high rainfall areas (Western

Ghats) to arid/semi-arid areas including the Terai and

Gangetic plains. These areas are subjected to heavy graz-

ing, which has resulted in their general degradation and

very low productivity. Ecologically they belong to the mid-

successional/subclimax type of grasslands.

Grassland management

Nomadic pastoralism, a traditional form of human-

livestock-grassland interaction, is still predominant in the

drylands of western India, the Deccan Plateau, and in the

mountainous reaches of the Himalayas. Nearly 200 castes

are engaged in pastoral nomadism. They represent endo-

gamous (discrete) social units, and specialize in the breed-

ing of traditional animal sub-types, including buffaloes,

sheep, goats, camels, cattle, donkeys and yaks (Tables 1

and 2).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaks

Grasslands in India 242


Table 1. Some important pastoralist communities in the Himalayan region of India (Sharma et al. 2003).

Pastoral community Area Predominant livestock species

Bakarwal Jammu and Kashmir mainly goats

Bhotia Uttarakhand, Garhwal, Kumaon − upper regions sheep, goats and cattle

Bhutia North Sikkim sheep, goats and cattle

Changpa Jammu and Kashmir, mainly in Zanskar yaks

Gaddi Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir sheep and goats

Kinnaura Kinnaur − Himachal Pradesh sheep and goats

Gujjar Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh buffaloes, some cattle

Monpa Tawang, West Kemeng of Arunachal Pradesh yaks and cattle

Van Gujar Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh buffaloes

Table 2. Some important pastoral communities in Western India (Sharma et al. 2003).

Pastoral community Area Predominant livestock species

Bharwad Gujarat sheep, goats and cattle

Charan Gir forest region of Gujarat cattle

Dhangar Maharashtra, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh sheep

Gavli Gujarat, Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra cattle

Gayri southern Rajasthan (Mewar) sheep

Ghosi Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh cattle

Golla Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra cattle

Jath Kutch region of Gujarat cattle, occasionally camels

Mer Saurashtra region of Gujarat camels, some cattle

Rath western Rajasthan (Ganganagar, Bikaner) cattle (mainly of Rathi breed)

Rebari/Raika Rajasthan and Gujarat camels, cattle and goats

Sindhi Sipahi or Sindhi Musalman Marwar and Jaisalmer mainly camels, also cattle and sheep

These pastoral groups are concentrated in certain re-

gions such as the semi-arid and arid Thar desert region,

salty marshy lands of Kutch, and the alpine and subalpine

zones in the Himalayas. In mountainous areas, nomadic

grazing descends in winter to the lower slopes and in

summer it progresses up the hills to get the maximum

benefit from the good pastures that regenerate after the

snow melts. In plateaus, plains and desert areas, the pastor-

alists move according to the alternation of the monsoon

and dry seasons, in response to the availability of forage

resources, including tree fodder. Usually in the dry season,

they move to the coastal tracts, and leave when the rains

come.

The grazing lands are degrading due to management

neglect and have been invaded by unpalatable, alien spe-

cies like Lantana, Eupatorium, Parthenium, Prosopis

juliflora and others, severely affecting grassland productiv-

ity. The once robust village-level traditional institutions,

that ensured the sustainable management of grasslands,

have broken down and there is no responsible agency to

look after the management issues (Anon. 2011). Neglect,

poor maintenance and overgrazing have resulted in most of

the grazing resources declining to a poor, degraded condi-

tion. In semi-arid areas, the carrying capacity is currently

less than 1.0 adult cattle unit (ACU)/ha, whereas in the arid

areas, it is 0.2−0.5 ACU/ha.

Many of the ecologically important, sensitive pasture

lands, viz. Shola grasslands of Nilgiris; Sewan grasslands

of Bikaner, Jodhpur and Jaisalmer; semi-arid grasslands of

Deccan; Rollapadu grasslands in the semi-arid tracts of

Andhra Pradesh; Banni grasslands of Gujarat; and Alpine

grasslands of Sikkim and Western Himalaya, have already

deteriorated to a large extent.

Issues for consideration to revitalize grasslands

Several factors, including the involvement of multi-

stakeholders, a lack of participation of pastoral people

in decision-making and in Government initiatives,

overgrazing, and a lack of sufficient extension resources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakarwal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharwad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhangar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jats_of_Kutch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kutch_district

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rath_tribe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebari

243 A.K. Roy and J.P. Singh

have hampered the revitalization of grasslands or CPRs.

Some of the following points require attention, in order to

achieve the rehabilitation of grazing lands, which are a

source of livelihood for a large population:

A national policy, involving various stakeholders,

needs to be formulated and implemented for the targeted

rehabilitation and development of the country’s grazing

resources (natural and cultivated).

There is need to coordinate various research, educa-

tional and extension projects on fodder and pasture

development for the CPR areas.

Ecologically sensitive grasslands need to be mapped

and appropriate amelioration models/protocols developed,

given priority and implemented.

Fodder conservation strategies need to be explored and

implemented to control numbers of grazing animals, meet

the fodder requirement targets for use during periods of

low productivity, and prevent overgrazing.

In the arid and semi-arid zones, the adoption of

silvopastoral practices could be considered.

In specific subregions, a network of nurseries and seed

banks is needed for the rejuvenation of CPRs and grass-

lands.

The rejuvenation of degraded grasslands will require

the best strategies for transferring technologies developed

in institutes to the field situation, using participative meth-

ods that consult with and educate the pastoralists.

Conclusion

A lot of significant work has been done and technologies

have been developed and tested with the active support of

Government agencies and researchers. More emphasis is

required in a coordinated manner involving multiple stake-

holders to implement processes and activities to

rehabilitate grasslands. It is hoped that this paper will help

to create international awareness and development of

suitable eco-friendly technologies for grassland rehabilita-

tion and sustainable livelihoods of communities.

References

Anonymous. 2011. Report of the Sub Group III on Fodder and

Pasture Management constituted under the Working Group

on Forestry and Sustainable Natural Resource Management.

Planning Commission of India, 21 September 2011.

http://goo.gl/lgn5dr

Dabadghao PM; Shankarnarayanan KA. 1973. Grass cover of

India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi,

India.

Pandeya SC. 2000. The grazing land resources and fodder culti-

vation in India. Foundation Day Lecture. IGFRI (Indian

Grassland and Fodder Research Institute), Jhansi, UP, India.

Shankarnarayan KA; Shankar V. 1984. Grasses and legumes for

forage and soil conservation. Indian Council of Agricultural

Research, New Delhi, India.

Sharma VP; Köhler-Rollefson I; Morton J. 2003. Pastoralism in

India: A scoping study. Centre for Management in Agricul-

ture, IIM (Indian Institute of Management), Ahmedabad,

India; League for Pastoral Peoples, Ober-Ramstadt, Germa-

ny; and NRI (Natural Resources Institute), University of

Greenwich, UK.

http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/outputs/ZC0181b.pdf

Singh JP; Saha D; Tyagi RK. 1997. Grazing land inventory and

monitoring for bio-mass production and eco-development

using cartographic and remote sensing techniques. Indian

Cartographer 17:213−218.

Singh JP; Radotra S; Roy MM. 2009. Grasslands of Himachal

Pradesh. IGFRI (Indian Grassland and Fodder Research

Institute), Jhansi, UP, India. p. 25−47.

Singh JP; Paul V; Maiti S; Ahmad Suheel; Deb D; Chaurasia

RS; Soni Richa. 2011. Sustainability of temperate/alpine

pastures vs landform and soil status: A case study of Sikkim

using GIS and RS techniques. Range Management & Agro-

forestry 32(1):19−24.

Tambe S; Rawat GS. 2009. Traditional livelihood based on

sheep grazing in the Khangchendzonga national park, Sik-

kim. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 8(1):75−80.

© 2013




http://goo.gl/lgn5dr

http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/outputs/ZC0181b.pdf




Improving smallholder livelihoods: Dairy production in Tanzania

EDWARD ULICKY1, JACKSON MAGOMA

2, HELEN USIRI

3 AND AMANDA EDWARD

4

1Head of Livestock Development Section in Hai District Council, Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania

2Twinning Project Coordinator, Kalali and Nronga Dairy Cooperatives in Hai District

3Nronga Women Dairy Cooperative Society Manager

4Barbro Johansson Model Girls High School in Tanzania, graduate (2013)

Keywords: Small-scale dairy farmer, Nronga Women Dairy Cooperative, Hai district, zero-grazing dairy, milk

marketing, biogas.

Abstract

Tanzania is primarily an agro-based economy, characterized by subsistence agricultural production that employs more than

80% of the population and contributes up to 45% of the GDP (2005). This country is endowed with a cattle population of

21.3 M, composed mainly of indigenous Zebu breeds and about 680 000 improved dairy animals. About 70% of the milk

produced comes from the traditional sector (indigenous cattle) kept in rural areas, while the remaining 30% comes from

improved cattle, mainly kept by smallholder producers. In Northern Tanzania and particularly in Hai district of Kilimanjaro

Region, some dairy farmers organize themselves into small producer groups for the purpose of milk collecting, marketing

and general promotion of the dairy sector in their community. Nronga Women Dairy Cooperative Society (NWDCS) Lim-

ited is one of such organizations dedicated to improve the well-being of the Nronga village community through promoting

small-scale dairy farming and its flow-on benefits. Milk flows out of the village, and services for investment and dairy

production flow into the village, ensuring a sustainable financial circulation necessary for poverty reduction, rural devel-

opment and better life for the rural community. In 2001 NWDCS introduced a school milk feeding program that has

attracted Australian donors since 2005. Guided by Global Development Group, a multi-faceted project, integrating micro-

enterprises, business, education and child health/nutrition, was proposed and initiated by building a dairy plant in Hai Dis-

trict headquarters, the Boma plant. In March 2013, the Australian High Commission to East Africa approved Direct Aid

Program funding of AUD 30 000 towards the NWDCS - Biogas Pilot Project in Tanzania, which included the renovation of

zero-grazing cow shade units, the construction of 6-m3 biodigester plants on each farm, and encouragement of the use of

bioslurry for pasture production and home gardens.

Resumen

La economía de Tanzania se basa principalmente en la agricultura, caracterizada por sistemas de producción de subsistencia

que emplean más del 80% de la población. En 2005 estos sistemas contribuyeron con más del 45% del PIB. El país tiene

una población de 21.3 M vacunos, compuesta principalmente por razas cebuínas autóctonas, y aproximadamente 680 000

vacunos lecheros mejorados. El 70% de la leche se produce en el sector tradicional rural con animales autóctonos, mientras

que el restante 30% proviene de animales de razas mejoradas mantenidos por pequeños productores. En el norte de Tanza-

nia y particularmente en el distrito Hai de la región Kilimanjaro, algunos productores de leche se han organizado en grupos

pequeños con el propósito de recolectar la leche producida, comercializarla y, en general, promocionar el sector lechero

dentro de su comunidad. Una de estas organizaciones es la Cooperativa Lechera de Mujeres de Nronga (NWDCS Ltd., por

su sigla en inglés), dedicada a mejorar el bienestar de la comunidad a través de la promoción de explotaciones lecheras a

pequeña escala y su flujo de beneficios. La leche producida es enviada fuera de la comunidad y en cambio regresan servi-

cios para la inversión y la producción lechera; de esta forma se asegura un flujo monetario sostenible que es necesario para

la reducción de la pobreza, el desarrollo rural y un mejor nivel de vida de la comunidad rural. En 2001 la NWDCS estable-

ció un programa de suministro de leche a las escuelas, que desde 2005 ha atraído a donantes australianos. Con la

___________ Correspondence: Edward Ulicky, Head of Livestock Development

Section, P.O. Box 150, Hai District, Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania.



245 E. Ulicky, J. Magoma, H. Usiri and A. Edward


orientación del Global Development Group, una ONG australiana, se propuso un proyecto multifacético que integra micro-

empresarios, negocios, educación, nutrición y salud infantil; este proyecto se inició con la construcción de una planta

procesadora de leche en Boma, la cabecera del distrito Hai. En Marzo 2013, la Australian High Commission to East Africa

aprobó una partida de su Direct Aid Program por AU$30 000 para la NWDCS, destinada al proyecto de una planta piloto

de biogás, que incluye la renovación de unidades cubiertas para vacas lecheras en confinamiento, la construcción de biodi-

gestores de 6 m3 en cada finca y la promoción del uso de biolodo para fertilización de plantas forrajeras y huertos

familiares.

Introduction

Tanzania is primarily an agro-based economy, character-

ized by subsistence agricultural production. Despite its

subsistence nature, the agricultural sector employs more

than 80% of the population and contributes up to 45% of

GDP (2005). The livestock sector contributes 30% of

agricultural GDP, which includes contributions of 40% by

beef production, 30% by milk production and 30% by

poultry and small stock production (ASR 2008).

Tanzania has a cattle population of 21.3 M (ASR 2008),

ranking third in Africa after Ethiopia and Sudan. The

Tanzanian cattle population is composed mainly of indige-

nous Zebu breeds and about 680 000 improved dairy

animals. Livestock-keeping offers a livelihood to 1.3 M

men and women, who raise their animals on the semi-arid

plains and highlands of Tanzania. The cattle herd has been

increasing at 2.1% per annum, which is still short of the

targeted growth from 2.7% in 2000 to 9% by 2010, set by

the National Strategy for Economic Growth and Poverty

Reduction, known by its Swahili acronym as MKUKUTA.

Tanzania’s dairy industry is meager; estimated milk

production is 1650 ML (2011). About 70% of the milk

produced comes from the traditional sector (indigenous

cattle) kept in rural areas, while the remaining 30% comes

from improved cattle, mainly kept by smallholder produc-

ers. Per capita consumption of milk is estimated to be

42 L/annum (2011). Around 10% of the small-scale dairy

farmers are found in Northern Zone and Southern High-

lands, where rainfall is high, climate is temperate and

disease vectors are minimal. Hai District, in the Northern

zone with 49 225 households and 38 280 dairy cattle on the

southern slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, practices intensive

dairy production with improved dairy cattle breeds. Most

households own from 1 to 3 animals and milk production

exceeds family requirements; the surplus milk is sold to

meet financial obligations of the family. Average daily

milk yields per milking cow range from 7 to 12 L. There

are 12 small-scale dairy farmer groups in the district, col-

lecting on average 4550 L of milk daily.

This case study focuses on one of the groups, the

Nronga Women Dairy Cooperative Society Limited.

The paper describes the structure and operation of the

cooperative, discusses some of the main challenges and

constraints, outlines Australian assistance programs and

points towards some lessons for the future.

Case study

The Nronga Women Dairy Cooperative Society Limited

(NWDCS, registered as KLR 476) is an organization of

dairy farmers, whose main purpose is to improve the well-

being of the Nronga village community through promoting

small-scale dairy farming and its flow-on benefits. For the

Wachagga tribe on the southern slopes of Mount Kiliman-

jaro, milk production is considered a traditional chore/role

for women, so women in Nronga were the originators of

the organization that now serves the whole community.

The cooperative’s services to the Nronga community in-

clude:

Buying milk from all dairy farmers in the village;

Promoting milk consumption through school milk

nutrition programs;

Offering saving and credit facilities to the community

(by way of a village community bank);

Providing artificial insemination of dairy cows, also

for neighboring villages; and

Promoting slow-combustion wood stoves in an effort

to reduce environmental impact.

The Nronga village is situated in Machame Division,

Hai District, located on the mountainous area of the slopes

of Mount Kilimanjaro. It has 659 households with a popu-

lation of 2181 inhabitants, and a population density of 860

people per km2 (2011). An international heritage area, the

Kilimanjaro Forest to the north of the village, is the source

of 2 major rivers, the Semira and Kikavu, located to the

east and west of the village, respectively. These rivers

converge to the south of the village, with deep valleys

isolating Nronga from the neighboring villages. Animal

fodder, firewood and building materials were collected

from riverside and heritage forests until recently, when the

government restricted the exploitation of these natural

resources. Hence, the community is left with very narrow

options on the alternative sources of basic materials, par-

ticularly firewood.

NWDCS was formed in March 1988 as a model pro-

Smallholder dairy production in Tanzania 246


ducer-based organization to promote dairy production

through effective milk marketing. Its formation was assist-

ed by FAO, DANIDA and the Tanzania Ministry of

Livestock Development. NWDCS started with 75 members

by collecting daily about 200 L of milk from its members

and selling the milk untreated to food shops in Moshi

town, as they had no milk coolers, processing machine or

office. The members milked their cows just after midnight

and sent the milk to collection points, where a vehicle

would collect it in cans, drive to Moshi and sell it in bulk

to food stores before dawn. While this procedure was

cumbersome, tedious and actually painful to women, who

traditionally own the milk, it was necessary to minimize

losses from milk going sour. Elected leaders recorded the

details and were responsible for fortnightly payments in an

open area in Nronga primary school playing grounds.

Today, NWDCS has 402 members and collects daily be-

tween 800 and 900 L of milk from Nronga village and the

neighboring villages of Foo, Shari and Kyeeri. Evening

and morning milk is collected and cooled in electric-

powered cooling tanks before processing or selling unpas-

teurized to wholesalers or consumers in urban areas of

Kilimanjaro and Arusha Regions. Milk is disposed of in

the following products: 36% fresh whole milk, 36%

skimmed cultured milk, 24% whole cultured milk in pack-

ets (500 ml for ordinary market and 200 ml for school

distribution), 4% pasteurized butter and 1% yogurt. These

products are produced manually using local facilities and

limited skills to produce market-competitive products.

Hence, NWDCS benefits the Nronga village communi-

ty, dairy farmers in Hai District and Tanzania at large. The

main benefits are:

Dairy productivity has been enhanced in the Nronga

village as well as in the neighboring villages. Nronga

village and neighboring village dairy farmers have a clear-

ly defined milk market and consumers and traders have a

reliable milk supply.

The cooperative has made a business out of dairying,

which was once considered a subsistence activity. As milk

flows out of the village, services for investment and dairy

production flow into the village, ensuring a sustainable

cash flow necessary for poverty reduction, rural develop-

ment and a better life for the rural community. The

NWDCS initiative’s business has fostered a Saving and

Credit Cooperative Society (SACCOS) and a Village

Community Bank (VICOBA) in Nronga village.

In their endeavor to increase future per capita milk

consumption in Northern Tanzania, in 2001 NWDCS

introduced a school milk feeding program. Currently 6

schools (3 in Kilimanjaro Region and 3 in Arusha Region)

with a total of 4717 pupils are fed milk, usually twice a

week, on a cost-sharing basis: the parents contribute

Tsh 150 (150 Tanzanian shillings) and the Tanzania Dairy

Board (TDB, which receives Australian donor funds) also

contributes Tsh 150 per 200 ml packet fed to the pupils.

NWDCS donates milk to a total of 540 orphan pupils in the

same schools. This school milk feeding program has im-

proved health and academic performance of pupils,

improved enrolments and attendance, and enhanced the

morale of teachers.

About 650 farmers are self-employed through dairy

farming and supply of milk to NWDCS. The lowest sup-

plier earns Tsh 70 000 per month from milk sales, more

than the Tanzanian minimal wage for rural workers, while

the highest supplier earns about Tsh 450 000 per month, a

middle-class employee salary. Moreover the NWDCS has

indirectly created employment opportunities for traders,

vendors and suppliers of dairy farming inputs in and

around Kilimanjaro and Arusha Regions.

Other benefits of NWDCS include public awareness

creation, women empowerment, promotion of the dairy

subsector nationwide, and the model for dairy development

in Tanzania.

Through NWDCS it has been possible to introduce

other appropriate technologies to the community, such as

energy-saving firewood stoves and the use of biogas from

zero-grazed cattle waste, to conserve forest resources.

Nronga village is one of the most developed villages in

Tanzania. It has a good source of income to pay for social

needs, such as good housing and school fees. Enrolment in

primary school is 100%, while 85% of primary school

graduates join secondary schools and 10% join vocational

colleges. About 45% of high school graduates join univer-

sities. The village has 12 university professors and other

high-level personnel working on various projects and their

involvement has been attributed to the impact of the

NWDCS.

Challenges and constraints

Market competition

As the number of dairy groups and processors increases,

competition in the market increases as well. Lowering the

price is not a good option in order to remain viable; satisfy-

ing the customer may be a better choice. Improved product

quality, better packaging, product diversification and pro-

motion of the products etc. need to be priorities. Resources

to take these steps are the main constraints. NWDCS needs

better technology, skills, funds for machinery, buildings,

organization and legal frame work, facilities to ensure

quality is maintained, to mention but a few, in order to be

competitive.

247 E. Ulicky, J. Magoma, H. Usiri and A. Edward


Location and inadequate infrastructure

The NWDCS factory is not centrally located to the market

for its products. The land on which the facility is located

has limited scope for expansion. The terrain for transporta-

tion is difficult. It is located in the rural area, where

utilities like electric power, water and telephone are unreli-

able. In order to expand processing facilities, NWDCS will

soon have no choice but to transfer to a location with

enough land and relatively reliable utilities, where work-

ers’ housing can easily be provided.

NWDCS is a pioneer in the dairy business in the Hai

district. Other milk collecting groups would like NWDCS

to grow further in order to be able to receive milk from

them. However, NWDCS’s capacity for receiving milk is

already over-stretched. These other groups are ready to

supply Nronga with milk, provided they position their

processing plant in the lowland area, where it will be easily

accessed, rather than in the undulating terrain of the Hai

District on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro.

Technology and training

Dairy farming productivity in the Hai District as a whole is

below its potential. The effective training of farmers, ex-

tension agents and other key players in development of the

subsector is paramount. If milk production is to increase in

quality and quantity, the milk collection system must be

made efficient and the dairy products compatible with

customer needs. A training center specifically for these

purposes must be in place.

Packaging materials

The school milk program is a tool to boost future per capita

milk consumption and ultimately expand the market for

milk and milk products. The immediate benefit of the

program is remarkable (as mentioned earlier) and the

cooperative would like to expand to more schools and

reach more pupils and orphans for development of the

Tanzanian economy and well-being of its people. How-

ever, the production of more school milk pouches is the

main constraint. An automatic packing machine is required

to make the many extra pouches that will be needed by the

schools.

Investment plan and profitability

In the past profitability of NWDCS has been suboptimal.

For sustainability and development of the cooperative and

dairy sector in the Hai District at large, the NWDCS has to

make a profit or at least break even. A good investment

plan is therefore essential.

Undeveloped distribution network

In rural areas, disposal of excess milk is difficult to organ-

ize. In Tanzania there are few milk collecting centers,

mostly organized through donor-funded projects. In Hai

district, there are 12 centers owned and managed by pro-

ducer groups. However, most of these centers have no

skilled manpower, facilities and proper equipment to man-

age collection of this perishable food resource.

Australian support

School milk project

In 2007, 3 Australian private donors learnt about the

NWDCS initiative to feed school children with milk and

kindly decided to partner with the cooperative by provid-

ing funds to increase the number of children and schools

receiving milk on subsidy. A refrigerated van was also

donated to distribute milk to distant schools.

Of late the donors are contributing towards building a

second dairy factory in the District capital town (Boma -

Hai) to enable NWDCS to make more milk packets and

reach more schools in a sustainable way. The dairy factory

and the donors have agreed that 10% of the milk collected

for processing will go towards the school milk program.

The 3 Australian donors requested Global Development

Group (GDG), an Australian charity organization carrying

out humanitarian projects with approved partners and

providing aid to relieve poverty in a tangible way, to pro-

vide a governance role and assist in the areas of planning,

monitoring and evaluation, as well as compliance, risk

management and auditing to ensure that this project is

carried out to Australian aid requirements.

The Biogas and Zero-Grazing Dairy Projects

Through a local contact in Tanzania using participatory

methodologies, GDG identified the need for and suitability

of a local biogas program to complement plans for adopt-

ing zero-grazing dairy methods that would provide wider

community benefit. Biogas is the use of livestock waste to

produce renewable energy in a climate-friendly and re-

source-efficient way. The Australian High Commission to

East Africa approved in Mach 2013 Direct Aid Program

funding of AUD30 000 towards the NWDCS - Biogas

Pilot Project in Nronga.

The features of this project include: renovation of 17

zero-grazing cow shade units; construction of 6-m3

biodigester plants on each participating farm; and encour-

agement of the use of bioslurry for pasture production and

home gardens.

Smallholder dairy production in Tanzania 248


The expected direct benefits from the production and

use of biogas to the Nronga community include:

Environmental sanitation through biodigestion.

Biogas as an alternative fuel has the potential to reduce

illegal logging in the international heritage-listed Kiliman-

jaro Forest.

Appropriate zero-grazing cow sheds have positive

impacts on animal well-being and productivity.

Bioslurry enhances pasture production and home

gardening.

Other expected benefits are: Cash saving; increased

milk production; reduced women work load; cleaner food

preparation environment; family happiness and peace;

home sanitation; less pneumonia and ocular illnesses;

NWDCS’s image enhanced; and the youths are attracted to

stay with the rural community.

Conclusions

The formation and development of the NWDCS has been

pivotal to the well-being of the dairy industry, farmers,

villages and school children in Tanzania. Development

organizations as well as policy makers commend this

model of rural formation for stimulating and spearheading

improvement of living standards in rural communities.

NWDCS is a living example of a successful primary coop-

erative society that addresses its community needs.

References

ASR (Agriculture Sector Review). 2008. Final Report 2008/09.

Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives,

Dar es Salaam, The United Republic of Tanzania.

http://goo.gl/WXuU5u

© 2013




http://goo.gl/WXuU5u


This issue of Tropical Grasslands−Forrajes...

Documents

Transcript of This issue of Tropical Grasslands−Forrajes...